One weak left (I'm not a pugilist)

I'm not very good at tennis but I do enjoy the occasional game against someone equally as bad as I am. I have a terrible backhand though. I guess it's a good thing I'm not an enforcer.

My time is almost up. Goodbye cruel world!! Okay, not really in that sense. I'm just leaving Japan in about six days. I'm a little sad to be going home but at the same time I'm extremely excited to see Pam again. Long distance relationships suck! Even more so when you're married. It was a lot of fun the week that she was here visiting and we say some amazing things (and actually took pictures too; we're usually terrible about taking pictures).

Us being samurai

Us doing what we do best

This is probably going to be the longest week ever. I leave Japan at 1:30pm on Friday and arrive in Detroit at 12:30pm. No that's not a typo. Yes, I will be travelling back in time. Stick that in your theory-that-in-an-ad-hoc-fashion-excludes-rotating-non-expanding-universes pipe and smoke it senor Hawking. Oooh, the burn! I'll bet he's going to lose sleep over that zinger. If I wasn't so awesome some might say I suffer from delusions of grandeur. The only thing I'm suffering from right now is the desire to be back in Michigan (yikes!) with my Pammy. She could be somewhere like the surface of the sun, the center of a black hole, Idaho, or Crimea and I would still want to be there with here. Location is not really a big factor as long as I'm with her. I might draw the line at a GOP convention though. You can only put so much strain on a relationship without severe consequences.

Yesterday I gave a presentation at the Quantum Chemistry Research Institute in Kyoto, which was awesome! I got to meet one of my quantum chemistry heroes, Hiroshi Nakatsuji, for the second time and I know what other people mean when they say they were just awestruck at the genius of someone. I can only hope to be as brilliant as he is and he's technically retired. We talked about an idea that he's working on right now that I can't wait to see published (I won't say more than that on this). Science is a lot of fun. It's not fun like playing at the playground fun (remember all those skinned knees, bloody noses, knocked loose teeth, banged up bodies, faces and heads, among other bodily injuries resulting from playing on the playground? It was still a lot of fun). Where it takes us next no one knows! That's part of what makes it so much fun.

Speaking of science. A friend of mine recently posted a blog about, among other things, how religion is under attack and part of that attack is science. I am in complete disagreement. The only attack on religion is from within its own camp (by 'religion' I mean christianity in this case) as they are fostering and nuturing extreme unchristian ideals and ways of behaving. Religion is attacking science claiming that it's not real or that because we're running computer simulations what we're doing isn't real. For anyone who thinks this way I have some choice words I will happily share with you in private, just send me an email. There is a case that's trying to be heard by the supreme court about a former teacher who was fired for teaching his religious ideas as science, even going so far to tell students to read the bible for science facts. The fact that there are many people that support this sort of insane and crazy behavior is itself crazy.

Who's attacking who? I've worked with atheists, agnostics, muslims, hindus, buddhists, and even christians. They've all known eventually that I'm religious and you know how many of them have had a problem or issue with it? None. Not one of them. They don't care. The only ones that really seem to care are the religious who are scared that science will remove religion from their children's hearts. It's not science that's the problem. Science is often used as an excuse but it's not the real reason. The real reason usually stems from how others in the religion have treated them, which usually amounts to harassment, assault, and in some cases even battery. If there really was an attack on religion from science I think the religious communities would end up being surprised by how many people would not side with them, especially once they start to think things through logically.

Science is about logic and what we can determine about the reality around us from the data we can collect and analyze, including our own experiences. There is no room for a blind belief in something (excluding certain aspects of string theory). Then ask yourself, why on earth would a scientist even say anything about religion? Perhaps because they've been possessed by the devil? Maybe it's just their evil human nature that drove them towards science in the first place? Or maybe it's the fact that religious people keep trying to throw their own beliefs in her/his face, trying to force them to accept their beliefs as science? That is what is happening and in response science is merely pointing out the flaws in trying to use religion as science. You can't.

If more religious people behaved like Gary from the South Park episode "All About Mormons" this world would be a better place.

"Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls." -Gary

Religion is not science. Just as you don't want science being used to try and describe your religion, stop trying to use your own personal religion to describe science, which attempts to be as universal as possible.

It's 9:02 PM

It's 9:02 pm, do you know where your family is? Mine is flying over the Yukon right now, preparing to enter the air of the great state of alaska (hopefully the plane is high enough the smug from palin and her cronies won't cause too much delay).

Awhile ago someone said "We're going to meet at 17:00," to which they were met with blank stares by most everyone and then they quickly responded, "5:00 pm, there are 24 hours in a day you know." This was a bit humorous. This person recently came off of active-duty (hopefully there wasn't much latrine duty-I love stupid childish humor) so it can be excused wanting to have the day be assigned 24 different hours, though I typically like mine to have at least 30. Stupid planet won't rotate slower no matter how much ice I dump into the volcano.



For those that don't like the video above, you need a sense of humor. For everyone else, including those that didn't like the video, we're going to talk about something unrelated (by talk I mean I'll write and maybe you'll skim though and catch a word here and there). Can you prove god doesn't exist? Can you prove god exists? Exactly! If you want to label the day from 0 to 23, because there are 24 hours in the day (and you program in C, not Fortran) then why don't you label the days of the year 0 to 364 (excluding leap years)? I'll tell you why, it's too hard.

IF! YOU! TYPE! ALL! IN! CAPS! IT! MEANS! YOU'RE! YELLING! AS! DOES! THE! EXCLAMATION! POINT! Please stop abusing them (I'll bet exclamation points get paid less than periods and commas too).

How often do you have to stop and think for a few minutes about which day of the month it is before finally giving up and looking at a calendar? Just as we broke up the unions in Wisconsin, we have broken up the year into more manageable pieces. The problem is that we need at least an extra pair of hands or feet to be able to keep track of which day it is. How cool would that be?

"So, would you like an extra pair of hands or an extra pair of feet for your kid?"

"Well, Doc, we like you so much we want him to have extra arms like you."

"You know I'm not a real doctor right?"

"Wait, what?!"

"Doom, doom, doom..."

Haha, if you actually get that you have issues and probably should stop watching cartoons, reading comics, and go see a real doctor.

Today is 112, 2014. How am I supposed to know what 21 days from today will be? I only have 20 digits with which to count. Much in the same way as we break up the year into months which have different numbers of days, causing much confusion (let's see, 30 days september, april june, and november, we're all going to die before I can remember...), we have broken up the day into two pieces (we all know two is more than one) making it more manageable, though the whole 12 thing is kind of a damper since I only have regular easy access to 10 of my digits. Counting, counting, courting, courting, country, country, county, county, county, county, county. That's a really funny looking word. Every once in awhile the word 'the' strikes me as the most awkward and strange word in the english language even to the point where I question whether I'm spelling it correctly. So until you start keeping track of the days of the year counting from 0 to 364 don't lecture me on there being 24 hours in the day we should call them as such. Consistence, it seems to consistently be missing from everything except moderation, where people are of the consistence of consistence inconsistency. That's another strange word.



Last thought with some honesty: for those that don't like global warming/climate change, do you know where it first showed up and why? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with earth and everything to do with physics. It's not political, at least its origin, and is based in science not politics. Besides, just as you can't go to a camp ground and leave it relatively unchanged without picking up after yourself, similarly, we can't exist here without causing effects and especially if we don't pick up after ourselves. At the same time though, it honestly doesn't matter any more either to the extent that the damage is done, though we do need to prevent even more harm from being done. A recent study has shown that even if everyone were to implement drastic changes right now, the damage is done, and we're going to be dealing with the effects that global warming will affect for the next couple hundred years. Thanks to all those opposing change, you've helped ruin many, not all (you're not that impotent), things for several generations. You parents must be so proud.

The fact that so many people have such disregard for the earth makes me sad. The fact that people insist they know the facts based on allegory and rhetoric rather than based on good science (studies have shown that the majority of scientists that don't 'believe' in global warming also don't actively do research or have it reviewed/scrutinized by their peers for flaws-the rest are politically motivated) also makes me sad. There's a reason we have such great things in our life. Science works and when applied properly it helps us live better lives.

So until next time, try not to eat any small children. Their soft bones are choking hazards.

P.S. it's now 11:25 pm and she's over the boring sea.

Telling tells of tails

Even though I'm in my late early thirties there are days I feel like I'm teenager again, and I'm not talking about raging hormones and acne, though those are both problems I have. I thought the acne was supposed to clear up once you got passed a certain age? I feel like the teenager stomping up and down saying, "Quit trying to tell me what I am/what to be!" in a nasally whiny voice (so my normal way of speaking). I tend to consider myself a reasonable person, reasonably intelligent anyway, which is not always a valid assumption.

In quantum chemistry there is this interesting phenomena where people like to use relatively inexpensive, computationally speaking, methods to solve the many-fermion Schrodinger equation. More specifically, they like second order many-body perturbation theory (MP2) and density functional theory (DFT). They both have some benefits, but if you want an accurate description of the problem, at the electronic structure level, they are not very reliable without some major work which can often muddle if not entirely obfuscate the physical interpretation of the results, more particularly with DFT. So not only do you end up with results that may or may not be accurate (maybe this is a lengthy and cruel joke playing off of Schrodinger's cat) and which may not even have a straightforward or even real physical meaning. For DFT you can imagine it as you have a giant machine with lots of knobs, switches, buttons, and even a henchman to do the work of twisting, flipping, switching, and manipulating all of the controls for you. This machine has the potential to provide you with very accurate answers, but only when the toggles, knobs, switches and dials are placed in the correct configuration, even then it's not always clear what they do exactly or what they mean. The problem is that no one knows what this correct configuration should be and even worse, from the stand point of trying to find that correct configuration, people like to add more adjustable doo-hickies to get a "better" answer, whatever that means.

One of the benefits and why some people like to use DFT is it has this nice property that it's variational. This means that the answer you get will always be greater than, or equal to the exact answer. This leads many people to say, "Wow! That's amazing! I'll never get answer lower than the real one!" But let's think about his for a second. We need to introduce the idea of a model space (I'm not going to be mathematically rigorous here because I don't want to be too over bearing, I just want to get the idea across. So if by some chance a person mathematically inclined reads this and says "That's not really true..." you can comment on it and I'll likely agree with you. It's called heuristic for a reason). Take earth, for example, and say we want to model the ocean. We need a good representation of the earth and so we shouldn't use a model space like mars, jupiter, saturn, pluto, or the sun as they will not give us a proper space/description of what we wish to model. When we first start with the Schrodinger equation we have a proper model space, we know we are not only on a planet, but on the correct planet. As we start to add knobs, dials, toggles and switches to manipulate things we start to change the landscape of the planet we are. Oceans might become deserts; the size, gravity, temperature, etc. might be changed too and we don't know how because there it not a specific physical meaning assigned to these adjustable parts. All we have to compare against is some numbers of what we know the answer should be for various situations. So we adjust all the different variables, which before we made any adjustments we were in the correct model space, or on the correct planet, and by the time we're done we have answers that come out close to the 'correct' ones, but we don't know anymore if we're still on an earth-like planet or if we've morphed into a rocky, barren desert, or even a giant ball of gas without any solid surface, or something else entirely (maybe a black hole?). This is a real problem because we're using these approaches to model reality but which reality does it belong to? Am I sitting comfortably on a beach watching the oceans rise slowly? Or am I stranded on the surface of venus scrambling to get inside before the sulfuric acid eat through my space suit and then my face? The numbers may come out being similar, but that's where it ends.

I would rather spend a longer amount of time using computer resources to compute an answer that has a physically meaningful and relevant interpretation. But this is definitely in the minority and many of the people that use DFT have most likely never even thought about this. Science is indeed in sad shape in some areas. A little more understanding, and math background, would go a long way to help advance many fields, as this is not a unique problem to my field.

Thoughts on the collapse

Just what the collapse might be, well that's open to disinterpretation. Eye wood like two make up and reed sum things butt eye have a hoard thyme even tho my words are knot spelled incorrect. Ah the joy of the written word and those windy windy roads upon which we wind our minds and bend the time to try and fit those loathsome rhymes and reason for the ages dark and bleak with humble corpses bent and broken knees upon which we tread all while following a malcontent thread. The robber baron laid bare his chest the knife drawn back his throat it pressed but being human one could not be as ruthless as he and laid waste to their own despair.

I love words. I don't love them like I love my wife, that would just be weird. I love them like a drug. I think that's the best way to describe it. I like morphine, but that's subjective since I've only ever had it when I've been in extreme pain. I'm not really into recreational drug use, thankfully (personal opinion) and so I'll probably never know if I like it because it kills the pain or because of something else. But I like words like a drug because they are a drug for me. When I write something like what I have above it gives me a sort of feeling of euphoria and elation that I have felt many times before as I coasted down the steep side of a snow covered hill strapped to a thin board, careened wantonly down a mountain side on a bike with nothing but a small styrofoam helmet strapped to my head, or sat at the top of a rocky outcrop and looked down at what would surely be my doom if I slipped and my gear malfunctioned (side note: at the top of a 30 foot climb my harness, which was double-checked, all cinches doubled back, etc., popped open and the person on belay was too busy talking with her friend to notice anything had gone wrong; that's some scary stuff, but still a rush). An E.R. doctor called me an adrenaline junky when i was there with a broken wrist from snowboarding. She might have been right. But doing stupid stunts like that aren't the only way for me to get my fix.

Words, writing, reading, eating, beating, manipulating, pummeling, cajoling, caterwauling, and any other ludicrously luscious lip smacking basilect your heart desires. Solving a physics or math problem in all their heinous, hair pulling, gut wrenching, face smacking, wall banging, infuriating glory and madness. Then there's always my preferred drug of choice, my wonderfully whimsically wizard of a wife whose beauty is unparalleled, her brilliant brain and wisdom are renowned and stands far afield from any that would feebly attempt to compare.

So my quandary at the moment is this: what the hell do I want to do with my life???!!! Other than lounge about all day in sandals and shorts doing whatever pops into my head. "There can only be one!!"

Sure, I'm 33 and have had plenty of time to figure this out. Lots of people my age have careers, successes, excesses, and all that. But does that mean I have to as well? Someone is probably going to say, "Yes, yes you should." To them I say...well...I think you can guess I will digress into the vulgar and let them know I can also work on cars when the occasion is needed.

I enjoy writing. I've enjoyed it for a very long time. That's what happens when you get past 30 years old, you start to get old and your metabolism starts to shut down (although, new studies have shown that part of the reason people are becoming obese has to do with hormones that are artificially pumping into our food supply. Yes, a free market regulates itself. Hooray for science!!! Screw you Rand Paul and all you other pseudo libertarians that haven't bothered to educate yourself on the science behind how to make the most profit. It's called game theory and says the best way for you to profit the most is to make sure everyone profits the most. It's not opinion, it's math, it's fact, and when done right, it actually works. This would include paying a fair (i.e., livable) wage to your workers, protecting the environment, making sure your product is safe and well built, etc. That my friends is libertarianism, not everything deregulated. Turn off the radio, TV, internet news and those other talking heads and read a book sometime, it's amazing what you'll learn). I'm writing three (science) papers right now and I've made sure to put my own spin on them and little gems for those that care to pay attention. But man, if creating a well written science article isn't one of the hardest most uncreative things I've ever done, I don't know what is. It's not that the ideas and work that were done before hand to provide the basis for the paper weren't creative and a wonderful outlet (sometimes) for those creative juices. It's just that once I sit down and start to bang out the actual paper it's like this demon in my mind takes over and suddenly everything is very rigid and liturgical. There seems to be little room for the sanguine flourishes of the pen that can dominate excellent pieces of literature (that excludes almost all of the new york times best sellers, ever. Sorry, an 8th grade reading level, or lower, doesn't allow for the acrobatics, whimsies and general flexibility needed for these excursions by the talented penman who has honed her craft and wields the pen like the mighty proverbial sword, in a nonphallic way, of course) and make them such a joy to read. But does it really have to be this way, you may ask? Only if you want to publish your work in a respected journal. Who needs that? Pretty much anyone that wants to keep their job at a research university, which is where I hope to end up eventually.

So the question I've been asking myself is this: do I want to be a scientist that writes about his work, or do I want to be a scientist that writes about the work of others and will allow for those extra flourishes and augmentations of the pen that otherwise might not be possible for publishing in science journals? I love the science, the math, the programming, the computer science and they all thrill and excite me and it makes my brain sad to think I might stop working on things of that sort.

Pushing boundaries has always been something I've done, even when I haven't tried or meant to, and it rarely turns out well in the short term. Do I stick with one of the things I enjoy and love while trying to poke and prod the larger community in which I reside to at least start to accept a bit more creativity, without going to excess, in the work I publish? Or do I opt for the slightly more glamorous, some might say, side of trying to write about science with a bit more creative freedom with my words? Both fields are laden with extremely talented people (one might say foes) that can do a much better job at one, the other, or both than I. Do I attempt to slay the dragon? Return to the castle and defeat the evil king? Or simply return to my hut and make do with what I have?

I've never been much of one for settling, but that doesn't mean I have any clue about what I want to do either.

"CURSE YOU SNACKS!!!!"

Bacon in Japan

I'm back in Japan, just this time for a longer stretch of time than before. While reading this blog I would highly recommend you listen to this song while you do, and not just because Tom Waits is freaking awesome either, though that statement is definitely true. If I could come back as any musician it would definitely be Tom Waits. I dig his style. Getting here was an adventure and a half. We boarded the plane on time. Time to take off came and went. We were still sitting at the gate. It turned out that the people working at the airport didn't know that snow (it had been snowing for a few hours at that point) can make you lose traction if you're driving a vehicle. The tiny little vehicle they use to back the giant plane out from the gate couldn't get enough traction to move the completely full plane (it was a double-decker). Finally after about 2 hours they finally realized the plane had engines and that maybe they could try using those to push the plane with the tug-truck to move us out of the gate. Magically it worked. We then waited another hour to get deiced and in the air. It was nice to finally take off. The flight was nice. I got to see some strange movies that I normally wouldn't get to see (Pam doesn't like them, and she's really not in the wrong to not like them). If you want to see a very strange movie check out Jacob's Ladder. I've seen that movie a handful or so times and I still don't really get everything in it, other than the obvious. Now I lost my train of thought...listen to the song twice if you need to, or really anything by Mr. Waits really. Ah yes, now I remember...there was about an hours lag in that time period, so you should have been able to listen to maybe an entire album of Tom Waits (I thought his name was Tom Watts for awhile due to some funky font in a CD cover from the 90's, wasn't that a fun time?). CP decomposition, that's what I wanted to mention. That and power-scaling laws that suck the life out of everything we try to do. Curse (not cure nor cur) you computer scientists for not being better at your job and making things work like in the movies!!!! So I've been checking out CP decomp. as something might help with these problems. I think it looks promising, but the real test will be if I can get an actual working example...doom doom doom, you're all DOOMED!!!!! A joke isn't funny if you have to explain the punch line. Getting punched is never fun, especially if it's by your significant other and it happens to be in your groin, and even more so if you're a male, though I'm pretty sure it doesn't feel good for females either. I'm making a table right now. Not the kind that's practical and will make your life better and will get rid of those cramps in your back and legs from having to crouch over on the cold hard floor because the person that's invented carpet and heaters hasn't come around yet. Oh no, my table is extremely impractical and in fact, it could even be argued that it doesn't even really exist. It's a table of data for a paper I'm supposed to be working on (instead I'm writing this, it's much more fun, at least at the moment). This, kids, is what science is all about. Making something impractical and calling it useful. Science is for people who can't play sports and stuff. Down with science!!! It never gave us anything good! Sorry, what was that? Oh you'll be right back, you're getting a call on your smart phone while trying to read this and take antibiotics to get rid of your staff infection and herpes? You know the easiest way to get rid of a staff infection? Fire them. Well, that sounds like enough ranting for the day. I'm going to go back to my table, it still needs a few dozen or so layers of laquer, and then maybe eat some eel (try it, you might just like it).

Groovy baby

I thought this was kind of cool (in a totally narcissistic way, of course):

Necromancing Narcoleptics

Names I have come up with for a band (if I ever get around to forming one):

Box of Donuts
Necromancing Narcoleptics
Brain Dead Chemists
Scientific Syphilis

For some reason I can't get anyone else to go along with any of them. The first is still my favorite (update: after watching the documentary on Netflix about killer whales in captivity, I no longer think it's funny to joke about dead baby whales, so if someone wants they can use the name, just know I will in no way support said band).

Have you ever wondered why Japan is do awesome? If not, you should have been pondering this question, and I will now pause for a moment to let you ponder it in solemn silence....if that moment wasn't long enough then pause again until you've had enough time (maybe watch a baseball game) and then come back for the answer. Part of the reason is that their dogs don't do their business like most dogs, no, their dogs leave ice cream treats of delight and joy.

Yes that is real and totally awesome!

To my grandma (and the two other people that look at this on occasion) it's okay if you don't understand what I'm talking about, no one really does including myself.

Symmetry, you think it's pretty cool and awesome, and in some regards it is, but in the long run it sucks. It sucks the life and soul out of you and will eventually want you to make everything around you completely unsymmetrical. This includes your own face (you remember how your mom would say, 'If you hold your face that way long enough it's going to stay like that forever...' that's where you obtained a real life lesson that you might need eventually) and that of loved ones as well. This they won't appreciate as much initially, but they will eventually learn to love you again. Symmetry is part of the problem with physics right now and why people are arguing about different models of how the world should be described. Personally I've been dealing with it on a much smaller scale and for problems that have far fewer effects on how we live and die. It still is a pain in the butt.