News Feeds

As I’ve recounted before, reader Robert Lang‘s home and studio burned down in the Los Angeles-area wildfires earlier this year. Not only that, but he and his wife Diane had a new home under construction a block or so away in Altadena, and that burned down, too (the older house hadn’t yet been sold).  The New Yorker did an article on the disaster (Robert lost nearly every item in his personal origami collection), which you can read here if you subscribe. Robert and Diane are now living in a rented house nearby, and I have to say that, having had dinner with them when I was in L.A., they have a remarkably sanguine attitude towards it, which I much admire. They will of course rebuild the home and studio as soon as the city permits.

Robert sent in some photos of the damage, along with a narrative, that I’ll put below. His words are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

RWP: Death and Life in Altadena

As readers of this website may know, on January 7–8, the Los Angeles area town of Altadena was destroyed by the Eaton Fire, which was driven by 60–100 mph Santa Ana winds. (It was one of several fires that day—another big one, the Palisades Fire, laid similar waste to the town of Pacific Palisades). The Eaton Fire began near the boundary of suburb and wildland, but the winds drove it both miles into Altadena and miles across the front range of the San Gabriel mountains. Across the mountains, it turned the dense but dry chapparal-covered ridges and canyons into bare dirt and rock studded with tiny blackened stumps of the formerly lush vegetation.

The San Gabriels (and, for that matter, most areas of Southern California) are lands of extremes; just a month later, on February 13, an atmospheric river barreled into town, dropping in some places 12 inches of rain in 24 hours (one of those places being the rain gauge of my neighbor, one of the lucky few who survived the fire). The downpour sent black torrents of water and debris flows roaring down the now denuded canyons and carved channels through fans of debris that poured down the mountainsides (*), damaging—and in many places, completely erasing—the network of hiking trails that were used by tens of thousands of hikers each week, including myself. My (now former) studio backed up to the Angeles National Forest and I had gone hiking almost every day; photos from my hikes and from my trail cams at and near my studio have been occasional RWP entries in recent years.

The Forest Service has closed a large portion of the Angeles National Forest, the burned area and then some. Alas, we’re not allowed to see, or even go repair, any of the damage in the ANF for at least a year. However, one of the organizations that I volunteer with, the Arroyo Foothills Conservancy, has their own inholding in the ANF, and our trail maintenance team recently did a reconnaissance of their property and trails. There was devastation; but there was also new life, welcome signs of both resilience and recovery.

The start of the trail—if you can call it that. This hillside had been covered with a dense thicket of laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), black sage (Salvia mellifera), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and much else. Not much left. Once the vegetation is gone, there is nothing to stop the downpours from cutting deeply into the dirt that is left. That gully to the left used to be a road that the trail ran along:

Last year, an Eagle Scout project posted old-fashioned metal signs at all the trail junctions. The metal is still there. The trail is visible here and goes to the left of the burned tree where debris has restored the original slope. But there’s a dusting of greenery; after the rains, the plants immediately start to come back:

A Whipple yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei ), resprouting. All of the leaves had been burned off, so the green you see is all new growth:

Looking up the hillside. There’s a trail weaving back and forth under all that deeply gullied loose gravel:

We were the first people to try to follow the trail since the fire and rain, but someone, or rather, something, had been there ahead of us; these are hoofprints of the California mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus californicus). The deer were already hard at work recreating their own trails. Of course, many of the original hiking trails had followed trails made by the indigenous Tongva—who had, in turn, initially followed animal trails long ago.

California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coming back:

The denuded hills. You can see some of the surviving trails as light lines on the hills:

There are several species of live oak in California (I don’t know which one this is). They evolved with fire and even with their leaves and small branches toasted, they resprout almost immediately. A large oak in the San Gabriels has likely been through many fires. Sadly, the one way that fire can kill even a large oak is when it’s coming from a house next to the tree; many of the hundred-year-old oaks in the neighborhoods of Altadena will be lost because of the hot and long-burning torches of the houses that were next to them:

Another “oak”—which is not at all an oak—is Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), a shrub, vine, or bush that is highly variable in form, widespread in the San Gabriels, and the bane of hikers due to the incredibly itchy rash it induces in most people who have the misfortune to brush against it. Its leaves turn bright red in the fall, but the new shoots are also brilliant, as seen here. Yes, it’s an irritant (at least to primates), but the deer love to eat it, and it’s an important source of browse for them:

New lush grass is springing up all over this hillside. Unfortunately, it’s a noxious invasive. Fountain grass (Cenchrus setaceum), an escapee from landscaping, outcompetes the local natives and is also fire-adapted; sadly, once established, it is close to impossible to eradicate. It will quickly dominate this hillside:

I like how the branching of the gullies mirrors the branching of the dead bushes, probably laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). Laurel sumac is incredibly resilient; I had several in the meadow behind my studio. I cut them down to the ground every spring for fire abatement, and by the next spring they’re four feet tall again. They’re just now burned off, but they, like the ones you see here, will be dense bushes again within a year:

Many animals died in the fires, but many survived; the herbivores are dining on the fresh young shoots, and the carnivores are dining on the herbivores. Our neighborhood trail cams have picked up coyote, bobcat, and even a mountain lion since the fire. We saw plenty of deer sign on our reconnaissance, and at the end, saw the source of some of the prints. This was shot with an iPhone at a distance, so it’s not particularly high resolution, but it is a nice reminder that Nature recovers and provides some inspiration for the rest of us Altadenans to go and do likewise:

(*) For an excellent overview of the cycle of fire and flood in L.A., see John McPhee’s New Yorker article “Los Angeles Against the Mountains,” collected in his 1989 book, The Control of Nature.

Now finally, we come to the heart of the matter of quantum interference, as seen from the perspective of in 1920’s quantum physics. (We’ll deal with quantum field theory later this year.)

Last time I looked at some cases of two particle states in which the particles’ behavior is independent — uncorrelated. In the jargon, the particles are said to be “unentangled”. In this situation, and only in this situation, the wave function of the two particles can be written as a product of two wave functions, one per particle. As a result, any quantum interference can be ascribed to one particle or the other, and is visible in measurements of either one particle or the other. (More precisely, it is observable in repeated experiments, in which we do the same measurement over and over.)

In this situation, because each particle’s position can be studied independent of the other’s, we can be led to think any interference associated with particle 1 happens near where particle 1 is located, and similarly for interference involving the second particle.

But this line of reasoning only works when the two particles are uncorrelated. Once this isn’t true — once the particles are entangled — it can easily break down. We saw indications of this in an example that appeared at the ends of my last two posts (here and here), which I’m about to review. The question for today is: what happens to interference in such a case?

Correlation: When “Where” Breaks Down

Let me now review the example of my recent posts. The pre-quantum system looks like this

Figure 1: An example of a superposition, in a pre-quantum view, where the two particles are correlated and where interference will occur that involves both particles together.

Notice the particles are correlated; either both particles are moving to the left OR both particles are moving to the right. (The two particles are said to be “entangled”, because the behavior of one depends upon the behavior of the other.) As a result, the wave function cannot be factored (in contrast to most examples in my last post) and we cannot understand the behavior of particle 1 without simultaneously considering the behavior of particle 2. Compare this to Fig. 2, an example from my last post in which the particles are independent; the behavior of particle 2 is the same in both parts of the superposition, independent of what particle 1 is doing.

Figure 2: Unlike Fig. 1, here the two particles are uncorrelated; the behavior of particle 2 is the same whether particle 1 is moving left OR right. As a result, interference can occur for particle 1 separately from any behavior of particle 2, as shown in this post.

Let’s return now to Fig. 1. The wave function for the corresponding quantum system, shown as a graph of its absolute value squared on the space of possibilities, behaves as in Fig. 3.

Figure 3: The absolute-value-squared of the wave function for the system in Fig, 1, showing interference as the peaks cross. Note the interference fringes are diagonal relative to the x1 and x2 axes.

But as shown last time in Fig. 19, at the moment where the interference in Fig. 3 is at its largest, if we measure particle 1 we see no interference effect. More precisely, if we do the experiment many times and measure particle 1 each time, as depicted in Fig. 4, we see no interference pattern.

Figure 4: The result of repeated experiments in which we measure particle 1, at the moment of maximal interference, in the system of Fig. 3. Each new experiment is shown as an orange dot; results of past experiments are shown in blue. No interference effect is seen.

We see something analogous if we measure particle 2.

Yet the interference is plain as day in Fig. 3. It’s obvious when we look at the full two-dimensional space of possibilities, even though it is invisible in Fig. 4 for particle 1 and in the analogous experiment for particle 2. So what measurements, if any, can we make that can reveal it?

The clue comes from the fact that the interference fringes lie at a 45 degree angle, perpendicular neither to the x1 axis nor to the x2 axis but instead to the axis for the variable 1/2(x1 + x2), the average of the positions of particle 1 and 2. It’s that average position that we need to measure if we are to observe the interference.

But doing so requires we that we measure both particles’ positions. We have to measure them both every time we repeat the experiment. Only then can we start making a plot of the average of their positions.

When we do this, we will find what is shown in Fig 5.

• The top row shows measurements of particle 1.
• The bottom row shows measurements of particle 2.
• And the middle row shows a quantity that we infer from these measurements: their average.

For each measurement, I’ve drawn a straight orange line between the measurement of x1 and the measurement of x2; the center of this line lies at the average position 1/2(x1+x2). The actual averages are then recorded in a different color, to remind you that we don’t measure them directly; we infer them from the actual measurements of the two particles’ positions.

Figure 5: As in Fig. 4, the result of repeated experiments in which we measure both particles’ positions at the moment of maximal interference in Fig. 3. Top and bottom rows show the position measurements of particles 1 and 2; the middle row shows their average. Each new experiment is shown as two orange dots, they are connected by an orange line, at whose midpoint a new yellow dot is placed. Results of past experiments are shown in blue. No interference effect is seen in the individual particle positions, yet one appears in their average.

In short, the interference is not associated with either particle separately — none is seen in either the top or bottom rows. Instead, it is found within the correlation between the two particles’ positions. This is something that neither particle can tell us on its own.

And where is the interference? It certainly lies near 1/2(x1+x2)=0. But this should worry you. Is that really a point in physical space?

You could imagine a more extreme example of this experiment in which Fig. 5 shows particle 1 located in Boston and particle 2 located in New York City. This would put their average position within appropriately-named Middletown, Connecticut. (I kid you not; check for yourself.) Would we really want to say that the interference itself is located in Middletown, even though it’s a quiet bystander, unaware of the existence of two correlated particles that lie in opposite directions 90 miles (150 km) away?

After all, the interference appears in the relationship between the particles’ positions in physical space, not in the positions themselves. Its location in the space of possibilities (Fig. 3) is clear. Its location in physical space (Fig. 5) is anything but.

Still, I can imagine you pondering whether it might somehow make sense to assign the interference to poor, unsuspecting Middletown. For that reason, I’m going to make things even worse, and take Middletown out of the middle.

A Second System with No Where

Here’s another system with interference, whose pre-quantum version is shown in Figs. 6a and 6b:

Figure 6a: Another system in a superposition with entangled particles, shown in its pre-quantum version in physical space. In part A of the superposition both particles are stationary, while in part B they move oppositely. Figure 6b: The same system as in Fig. 6a, depicted in the space of possibilities with its two initial possibilities labeled as stars. Possibility A remains where it is, while possibility B moves toward and intersects with possibility A, leading us to expect interference in the quantum wave function.

The corresponding wave function is shown in Fig. 7. Now the interference fringes are oriented diagonally the other way compared to Fig. 3. How are we to measure them this time?

Figure 7: The absolute-value-squared of the wave function for the system shown in Fig. 6. The interference fringes lie on the opposite diagonal from those of Fig. 3.

The average position 1/2(x1+x2) won’t do; we’ll see nothing interesting there. Instead the fringes are near (x1-x2)=4 — that is, they occur when the particles, no matter where they are in physical space, are at a distance of four units. We therefore expect interference near 1/2(x1-x2)=2. Is it there?

In Fig. 8 I’ve shown the analogue of Figs. 4 and 5, depicting

• the measurements of the two particle positions x1 and x2, along with
• their average 1/2(x1+x2) plotted between them (in yellow)
• (half) their difference 1/2(x1-x2) plotted below them (in green).

That quantity 1/2(x1-x2) is half the horizontal length of the orange line. Hidden in its behavior over many measurements is an interference pattern, seen in the bottom row, where the 1/2(x1-x2) measurements are plotted. [Note also that there is no interference pattern in the measurements of 1/2(x1+x2), in contrast to Fig. 4.]

Figure 8: For the system of Figs. 6-7, repeated experiments in which the measurement of the position of particle 1 is plotted in the top row (upper blue points), that of particle 2 is plotted in the third row (lower blue points), their average is plotted between (yellow points), and half their difference is plotted below them (green points.) Each new set of measurements is shown as orange points connected by an orange line, as in Fig. 5. An interference pattern is seen only in the difference.

Now the question of the hour: where is the interference in this case? It is found near 1/2(x1-x2)=2 — but that certainly is not to be identified with a legitimate position in physical space, such as the point x=2.

First of all, making such an identification in Fig. 8 would be like saying that one particle is in New York and the other is in Boston, while the interference is 150 kilometers offshore in the ocean. But second and much worse, I could change Fig. 8 by moving both particles 10 units to the left and repeating the experiment. This would cause x1, x2, and 1/2(x1-x2) in Fig. 8 to all shift left by 10 units, moving them off your computer screen, while leaving 1/2(x1-x2) unchanged at 2. In short, all the orange and blue and yellow points would move out of your view, while the green points would remain exactly where they are. The difference of positions — a distance — is not a position.

If 10 units isn’t enough to convince you, let’s move the two particles to the other side of the Sun, or to the other side of the galaxy. The interference pattern stubbornly remains at 1/2(x1-x2)=2. The interference pattern is in a difference of positions, so it doesn’t care whether the two particles are in France, Antarctica, or Mars.

We can move the particles anywhere in the universe, as long as we take them together with their average distance remaining the same, and the interference pattern remains exactly the same. So there’s no way we can identify the interference as being located at a particular value of x, the coordinate of physical space. Trying to do so creates nonsense.

This is totally unlike interference in water waves and sound waves. That kind of interference happens in a someplace; we can say where the waves are, how big they are at a particular location, and where their peaks and valleys are in physical space. Quantum interference is not at all like this. It’s something more general, more subtle, and more troubling to our intuition.

[By the way, there’s nothing special about the two combinations 1/2(x1+x2) and 1/2(x1-x2), the average or the difference. It’s easy to find systems where the intereference arises in the combination x1+2x2, or 3x1-x2, or any other one you like. In none of these is there a natural way to say “where” the interference is located.]

The Profound Lesson

From these examples, we can begin to learn a central lesson of modern physics, one that a century of experimental and theoretical physics have been teaching us repeatedly, with ever greater subtlety. Imagining reality as many of us are inclined to do, as made of localized objects positioned in and moving through physical space — the one-dimensional x-axis in my simple examples, and the three-dimensional physical space that we take for granted when we specify our latitude, longitude and altitude — is simply not going to work in a quantum universe. The correlations among objects have observable consequences, and those correlations cannot simply be ascribed locations in physical space. To make sense of them, it seems we need to expand our conception of reality.

In the process of recognizing this challenge, we have had to confront the giant, unwieldy space of possibilities, which we can only visualize for a single particle moving in up to three dimensions, or for two or three particles moving in just one dimension. In realistic circumstances, especially those of quantum field theory, the space of possibilities has a huge number of dimensions, rendering it horrendously unimaginable. Whether this gargantuan space should be understood as real — perhaps even more real than physical space — continues to be debated.

Indeed, the lessons of quantum interference are ones that physicists and philosophers have been coping with for a hundred years, and their efforts to make sense of them continue to this day. I hope this series of posts has helped you understand these issues, and to appreciate their depth and difficulty.

Looking ahead, we’ll soon take these lessons, and other lessons from recent posts, back to the double-slit experiment. With fresher, better-informed eyes, we’ll examine its puzzles again.

This is an interesting concept, with an interesting history, and I have heard it quoted many times recently – “we get the politicians (or government) we deserve.” It is often invoked to imply that voters are responsible for the malfeasance or general failings of their elected officials. First let’s explore if this is true or not, and then what we can do to get better representatives.

The quote itself originated with Joseph de Maistre who said, “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” (Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite.) Maistre was a counter-revolutionary. He believed in divine monarchy as the best way to instill order, and felt that philosophy, reason, and the enlightenment were counterproductive. Not a great source, in my opinion. But apparently Thomas Jefferson also made a similar statement, “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”

Pithy phrases may capture some essential truth, but reality is often more complicated. I think the sentiment is partly true, but also can be misused. What is true is that in a democracy each citizen has a civic responsibility to cast informed votes. No one is responsible for our vote other than ourselves, and if we vote for bad people (however you wish to define that) then we have some level of responsibility for having bad government. In the US we still have fair elections. The evidence pretty overwhelmingly shows that there is no significant voter fraud or systematic fraud stealing elections.

This does not mean, however, that there aren’t systemic effects that influence voter behavior or limit our representation. This is a huge topic, but just to list a few examples – gerrymandering is a way for political parties to choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their representatives, the electoral college means that for president some votes have more power than others, and primary elections tend to produce more radical options. Further, the power of voters depends on getting accurate information, which means that mass media has a lot of power. Lying and distorting information deprives voters of their ability to use their vote to get what they want and hold government accountable.

So while there is some truth to the notion that we elect the government we deserve, this notion can be “weaponized” to distract and shift blame from legitimate systemic issues, or individual bad behavior among politicians. We still need to examine and improve the system itself. Actual experts could write books about this topic, but again just to list a few of the more obvious fixes – I do think we should, at a federal level, ban gerrymandering. It is fundamentally anti-democratic. In general someone affected directly by the rules should not be able to determine those rules and rig them to favor themselves. We all need to agree ahead of time on rules that are fair for everyone. I also think we should get rid of the electoral college. Elections are determined in a handful of swing states, and voters in small states have disproportionate power (which they already have with two senators). Ranked-choice voting also would be an improvement and would lead to outcomes that better reflect the will of the voters. We need Supreme Court reform, better ethics rules and enforcement, and don’t get me started on mass and social media.

This is all a bit of a catch-22 – how do we get systemic change from within a broken system?  Most representatives from both parties benefit from gerrymandering, for example. I think it would take a massive popular movement, but those require good leadership too, and the topic is a bit wonky for bumper stickers. Still, I would love to see greater public awareness on this issue and support for reform. Meanwhile, we can be more thoughtful about how we use the vote we have. Voting is the ultimate feedback loop in a democracy, and it will lead to outcomes that depend on the feedback loop. Voters reward and punish politicians, and politicians to some extent do listen to voters.

The rest is just a shoot-from-the-hip thought experiment about how we might more thoughtfully consider our politicians. Thinking is generally better than feeling, or going with a vague vibe or just a blind hope. So here are my thoughts about what a voter should think about when deciding whom to vote for. This also can make for some interesting discussion. I like to break things down, so here are some categories of features to consider.

Overall competence: This has to do with the basic ability of the politician. Are they smart and curious enough to understand complex issues? Are they politicly savvy enough to get things done? Are they diligent and generally successful?

Experience: This is related to competence, but I think is distinct. You can have a smart and savvy politician without any experience in office. While obviously we need to give fresh blood a chance, experience also does count. Ideally politicians will gain experience in lower office before seeking higher office. It also shows respect for the office and the complexity of the job.

Morality: This has to do with the overall personality and moral fiber of the person. Do they have the temperament of a good leader and a good civil servant? Will they put the needs of the country first? Are they liars and cheaters? Do they have a basic respect for the truth?

Ideology: What is the politician’s governing philosophy? Are they liberal, conservative, progressive, or libertarian? What are their proposals on specific issues? Are they ideologically flexible, willing and able to make pragmatic compromises, or are they an uncompromising radical?

There is more, but I think most features can fit into one of those four categories. I feel as if most voters most of the time rely too heavily on the fourth feature, ideology, and use political party as a marker for ideology. In fact many voters just vote for their team, leaving a relatively small percentage of “swing voters” to decide elections (in those regions where one party does not have a lock). This is unfortunate. This can short-circuit the voter feedback loop. It also means that many elections are determined during the primary, which tend to produce more radical candidates, especially in winner-take-all elections.

It seems to me, having closely followed politics for decades, that in the past voters would primarily consider ideology, but the other features had a floor. If a politician demonstrated a critical lack of competence, experience, or morality that would be disqualifying. What seems to be the case now (not entirely, but clearly more so) is that the electorate is more “polarized”, which functionally means they vote based on the team (not even really ideology as much), and there is no apparent floor when it comes to the other features. This is a very bad thing for American politics. If politicians do not pay a political price for moral turpitude, stupidity or recklessness, then they will adjust their algorithm of behavior accordingly. If voters reward team players above all else, then that is what we will get.

We need to demand more from the system, and we need to push for reform to make the system work better. But we also have to take responsibility for how we vote and to more fully realize what our voting patterns will produce. The system is not absolved of responsibility, but neither are the voters.

The post The Politicians We Deserve first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

An eavesdropper hiding inside a black hole could still obtain information about quantum objects on its outside, a finding that reveals how effectively black holes destroy the quantum states near their event horizons

Paranthropus was an ape-like hominin that survived alongside early humans for more than a million years. A fossilised leg belonging to a strikingly small member of the group raises questions about how it did so

The rate at which the planet is warming has sped up since 2010, and now researchers say that China's efforts to clean up air pollution are inadvertently responsible for the majority of this extra warming

Taking aspirin was first linked to a lower risk of colorectal cancer in 1988, but the research into its anti-tumour potential has been full of twists and turns since then

What kinds of scientific instruments can be used to sample the plumes of Enceladus with the goal of identifying the ingredients for life as we know it? This is what a recent study presented at the 56th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference hopes to address as a team of international researchers investigated how the novel High Ice Flux Instrument (HIFI) could be the next-generation instrument used to sample the plumes of Enceladus while building off the groundbreaking findings from the NASA Cassini spacecraft’s Cosmic Dust Analyzer (CDA). This study has the potential to help scientists and engineers develop new and efficient methodologies for finding life on Enceladus and throughout the solar system.

How can scientists and engineers build off the success of NASA’s Ingenuity Mars helicopter to better explore the Red Planet? This is what a recent study presented at the 56th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference hopes to address as an aerospace executive with more than two decades of research and engineering experience investigated how a next-generation Mars helicopter could conduct groundbreaking science while delivering peak efficiency and performance. This study has the potential to help scientists and engineers develop new methods for exploring Mars with cost-effective and efficient methods.

Be it sensors, cameras, or displays: Metasurfaces have the potential to fundamentally improve optical systems in our everyday lives. By controlling light more precisely, they drive compact, multi-functional solutions. Researchers have now developed an optical component that enables highly efficient light control at steep angles of incidence, overcoming previous limitations.

Be it sensors, cameras, or displays: Metasurfaces have the potential to fundamentally improve optical systems in our everyday lives. By controlling light more precisely, they drive compact, multi-functional solutions. Researchers have now developed an optical component that enables highly efficient light control at steep angles of incidence, overcoming previous limitations.

What can cryovolcanism on the dwarf planet Ceres teach us about potential cryovolcanism on Uranus’ five largest moons, which include Oberon, Umbriel, Ariel, Titania, and Miranda? This is what two studies recently presented at the 56th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference hopes to address, as a team of researchers investigated using Ceres as an analog for the potential ocean moons, Umbriel and Oberon, and the likelihood of an impact crater on Umbriel showing evidence of cryovolcanism. These studies have the potential to help researchers better understand the formation and evolution of ocean worlds in the outer solar system and whether they could potentially have life as we know it.

When it comes to the planets produced in protoplanetary disks, size matters, but not the way you might think. That's the conclusion a group of astronomers found when they aimed the Atacama Large Millimeter Array in Chile at hundreds of these disks around young stars in the southern constellation Lupus. They used the observatory in 2023 and 2024 to focus on the disks and supplemented that with archival data.

I’ve been busy at the pond watching the ducks and giving a bit of a nosh to Mordecai and Esther, who are doing well. They look fat and happy, though I saw another drake at the pond today and the trio flew off together. (Yes, the males create a “rape culture” (the technical term is “forced copulation”) for the hens, who must constantly avoid ministrations of males other than their mate.) But now they are only two, and I check on them three times a day. Lots of people come by the pond and ask about the ducks, and when I tell them what I know (they like the names) they say that they can’t wait for the ducklings to appear.  But Esther hasn’t nested yet, though she’s preparing to, and once she does and sits on all the eggs she lays, it’ll be 28 days till the babies hatch.

First, the stars of the show. Look at this beautiful hen! Esther’s speculum (the blue feathers) are bright and beautiful.

And her mate (for the moment, at least), Mordecai, with his iridescent green head. A friend of mine— the advisor to Team Duck—guesses that both ducks are two years old au maximum. 

A video of Esther giving voice. She is one of the noisiest hens I’ve ever heard in the pond (remember, only females make the characteristic “quack,” while males make soft, low quacks). Here she is, loud and proud:

More quacking. I often think of having a wine-and-cheese party next to the pond, calling it “Cheese and Quackers.”

Esther is also busy “window shopping,” checking out the windowsills in adjacent buildings where she’ll build her next.  So far she seems to have settled on the second floor of Erman Hall, part of our department. She hasn’t yet chosen the right window yet, as she appears in various windows. She seems to be favoring the second floor. One of our new faculty members has most of the second floor, and when I told her about the window-shopping, she was excited that Esther might nest on her lab window. (She likes ducks and the pond.)

Here’s Esther scoping out a second-floor window in Erman (she’s at the end of the arrow). Although wild mallards are ground-nesters, for some reason even young hens at Botany Pond start scoping out windowsills to avoid predators and pesky drakes.  How they figure this out is a mystery to me, as they certainly can’t have the genes for nesting so high, and I doubt they learn it from watching other hens. One of my colleagues thinks that a window ledge is a “superliminal stimulus.” That is, mallard hens are known to nest on wooden platforms low to the ground or on bent-over tussocks of grass that are a foot or so from the ground. This protects them somewhat from predators like raccoons or possume. It could be that, like our evolved love of sweets and fats that now drives many us to a diet full of sugary foods, hens have an evolved preference for nesting a bit high, and that goes into overdrive when they see a safe windowsill with vines to anchor a nest.

More of Esther at Erman:

Here her head is tilted, a hen’s cutest pose:

After a nosh, both ducks like to preen, clean themselves by grooming and dunking underwater, and making big aplashes for futher cleaning. Here’s Esther doing all that. Note that her bill opens as if she’s quacking, but no sound comes out. I’m told that this is common in hens. When she rubs her head over her feathers, she’s oiling them.

Another loud bout of postprandial quacking and activity:

Ducks, like many birds, oil their feathers using the uropygial gland at the feathers near their tail.  Wikipedia says this about it:

It is a holocrine gland enclosed in a connective tissue capsule made up of glandular acini that deposit their oil secretion into a common collector tube ending in a variable number of pores (openings), most typically two. Each lobe has a central cavity that collects the secretion from tubules arranged radially around the cavity. The gland secretion is conveyed to the surface via ducts that, in most species, open at the top of a papilla (nipple-like structure).

More from VCA Animal Hospitals:

The uropygial gland is located on top of the tail base, on the lower back, just in front of the base of the tail feather quills. This area is generally featherless except for a tuft of feathers at the tip called the uropygial wick. The gland is bi-lobed, with two similar-sized sections.

The uropygial gland secretes a thick, transparent, complex oil (preening oil) that consists of diester waxes (uropygiols), fats, and fatty acids. Each lobe of the gland secretes oil through small papilla (nipple-like projections).

The oil secreted by the uropygial gland performs many functions, including waterproofing and maintaining the suppleness of the skin, feathers, and beak. The oil may have an antibacterial function.

During preening, a bird transfers this oil to its feathers by rubbing its head and beak against the oil gland and then spreading the oil over the rest of its feathers.

The uropygial gland is not normally visible unless the feathers are parted in this area or there is a problem with the gland.

Here you can see Esther rubbing her head and bill on the gland and then spreading it over her feathers.  They mostly use their beak, but also dive and splash because mixing the oils with water helps spread it through the feathers, giving the duck essential waterproofing. They also use their heads and flexible necks to spread the oils, so there’s no part of her body (save her “chin,” perhaps) that she can’t reach:

Here’s a thorough cleaning and oiling of her wings.  They don’t miss a feather! Ducks are immaculate, constantly grooming.

The drakes have to preen too, of course, as all mallards need to be waterproof and clean. Note Esther go for her gland at about 18 seconds in. Both ducks also engage in diving:

One more video of Esther preening. Notice how she goes for the uropygeal glands and uses her flexible neck to spread oils from her head and beak.

After bath time it’s nap time.  They like to lie on the grass and cement on the pond edge in the afternoon, warmed by the sun to their west.

Notice how cryptic Esther is compared to Mordecai. His visibility is the price he pays for attracting a mate, but the females’ color and pattern help then hide from predators (and horny drakes). You can see her hunkered down to the right, looking like a clump of brown grass.

Here’s a cartoon map of the campus from 1932, labeled as ” Elizabeth Moore (“Betty”) Fisher’s (PhB’22) 1932 cartoon campus map. (University of Chicago Special Collections).”  You can see the whole thing enlarged here (map below, click to enlarge):

and, enlarging Botany Pond, you see a lone duck (I added the arrow in the second picture below). Botany Pond was built in 1899 as part of the biology group’s research facilities, and you can see some early photos here.  The pond and surroundings were designed by the landscape architects John Charles and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., two brothers whose firm designed many notable spaces.

More than 100 years of ducks!

The pond has been under renovation for two years, as cracks in the walls, and an accumulation of schmutz, called for a ton of renovation. During that time the pond was empty and we were bereft from the lack of ducks (many also greatly miss the turtles and fish, which will be put back into the pond). During this slow period, I tended the squirrels, giving them high-class nuts like pecans and hazelnuts:

Fingers crossed for a good summer and a healthy crop of ducklings!

Yes. they say that age is “just a number,” but it isn’t in one sense: the bigger the number, the closer we are to taking The Big Nap. But in the birthday/anniversary sense, yes, it’s significant—though only because humans evolved with ten digits. And Eric Clapton has one of these anniversaries: he was born on March, 30, 1945, and so turns eighty today.

I’m speaking subjectively, of course, but I consider Clapton the greatest rock guitarist of all time (Rolling Stone ranks him at #2, after Jimi Hendrix, who has a credible claim to the top spot). Further, Clapton was coauthor and performer of what I see as the greatest rock song of all time: “Layla” (note that it was recorded in 1970, when Clapton was only 25).

“Layla” is a two-part song, as you’ll hear below, with the rocking seven-note intro that identifies it immediately. Later it segues into a slow part with piano, and I usually stop listening at that point. So I guess I can say that the best rock song in history is the FIRST part of “Layla.”

It was the feature song of the only album made by one of Clapton’s groups: Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, featuring Derek and the Dominoes. Here’s that group below: (L–R: Jim Gordon, Carl Radle, Bobby Whitlock, Eric Clapton).

Atco Records, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Another reason I love “Layla” is the backstory, which every rock aficionado knows. It’s the heartfelt cry of a man in love with a woman who’s already married. She was Patti Boyd, who was married to George Harrison when Clapton fell in love with her. (Harrison and Boyd divorced two years after the song, and Clapton married her in 1979. It wasn’t the love of a lifetime, for they divorced a decade later.

This is one song where every word tells the story of that unrequited love.  Here’s a great live version (there are several), performed at Madison Square Garden in 1999, when Clapton was 54.  He hasn’t lost a lick, and the fantastic solo begins at 2:56, when he makes the guitar scream and wail, playing out his pain.

You can stop listening at 4:05, when the slow part begins, though I know some readers will find it as good as (and inseparable from) the first part.

Yes, I know that Clapton has a bit of a dark side. He’s known for bizarre behavior, including racist and anti-vaccine rants.  But long after he’s taken the Big Nap, people will still be listening to and marveling at his music. Nobody has ever played the axe better.

Clapton had tons of good songs. Some of my favorites are “Lay Down Sally” (1977), “Promises” (a ringer from 1978), and one more I’ll show below, “Badge,” (1969), co-written with George Harrison, who plays on the recorded track by Cream.  I’ll never forget the first time I heard “Badge,” which came out when I was in college; I was mesmerized by the solo.  Here it is live from 2001, with an extended solo in the middle and then another long one (not on the recording) at the end.

And so it’s a happy birthday to Slowhand!

Feel free to give your favorite Clapton song in the comments, or take issue with my ranking “Layla” as the best rock song ever (but you have to name your choice).

This being Sunday, we have a dollop of John Avise‘s photos of North American butterflies. John’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

Butterflies in North America, Part 16 

This week continues my 18-part series on butterflies that I’ve photographed in North America.  I’m continuing to go down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name.  The following is an anecdote rather than a controlled observation, but I wonder whether other WEIT readers have a similar impression:  Twenty years ago, butterflies of many species seem to me to have been far more abundant than they are today.

Silvery Blue (Glaucopsyche lygdamus), male:

Silvery Blue, male underwing:

Silvery Blue, female:

Silvery Checkerspot (Chlosyne nycteis):

Silvery Checkerspot, underwing:

Sleepy Duskywing (Erynnis brizo):

Sonoran Skipper (Polites sonora), upperwing:

Sonoran Skipper, underwing:

Spicebush Swallowtail (Papilio troilus):

Spring Azure (Celastrina laden):

Sylvan Hairstreak (Satyrium sylvinus):

Tailed Copper (Lycaena arota), upperwing:

Tailed Copper, underwing:

Efforts are underway to develop advanced propulsion systems that can reduce transit times to Mars and other locations in the Solar System. These include nuclear propulsion concepts, which NASA began researching again in 2016 for its proposed "Moon to Mars" mission architecture. In a recent paper, two aerospace innovators reviewed some key nuclear-electric propulsion concepts, their respective advantages, and challenges. In the end, they conclude that nuclear propulsion has the potential to revolutionize space exploration and make humanity "multiplanetary."

Deciding how to power a CubeSat is one of the greatest challenges when designing a modular spacecraft. Tradeoffs in solar panel size, battery size, and power consumption levels are all key considerations when selecting parts and mission architecture. To help with those design choices, a paper from researchers in Ethiopia and Korea describes a new machine-learning algorithm that helps CubeSat designers optimize their power consumption, ensuring these little satellites have a better chance of fulfilling their purpose.

Bill Maher’s latest news-and-comedy shtick (8½ minutes) deals with “Trump Devotion Syndrome”:  the sycophancy that imbues the cowards of America who don’t want to offend the Orange Man.  Lots of Presidential rump osculation here! Putting his image on Mount Rushmore and on American currency? But of course!

Oh, and there’s the “transgender mice” he mentioned.  (“We were splicing their genes, not making them compete in women’s sports.”) All in all, this bit is what the kids say is a “sick burn” for MAGA.  And Maher is peeved!

John McWhorter and journalist Rikki Schlott are there, too.

This is a good one; don’t miss it.

A team led by Corrado Malanga from the University of Pisa and Filippo Biondi from the University of Strathclyde recently claimed to have found huge structures beneath the Pyramids of Giza using Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) technology.

These structures are said to be up to 10 times larger than the pyramids, potentially rewriting our understanding of ancient Egyptian history.

However, many archaeologists and Egyptologists, including prominent figures, have expressed doubt, highlighting the lack of peer-reviewed evidence and the technical challenges of such deep imaging.

Photo by Michael Starkie / Unsplash

Dr. Zahi Hawass, a renowned Egyptologist and former Egyptian Minister of Antiquities, has publicly rejected these findings, calling them “completely wrong” and “baseless,” arguing that the techniques used are not scientifically validated. Other experts, like Professor Lawrence Conyers, have questioned whether SAR can penetrate the dense limestone to the depths claimed, suggesting decades of prior studies using other methods found no such evidence.

The claims have reignited interest in fringe theories, such as the pyramids as ancient power grids or energy hubs, with comparisons to Nikola Tesla’s wireless energy transmission ideas. Mythological correlations, like the Halls of Amenti and references in the Book of the Dead, have also been drawn.

The research has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which is a critical step for validation. The findings were announced via a press release on March 15, 2025, and discussed in a press conference.

What to make of it all?

For a deep dive into this fascinating claim, Skeptic magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael Shermer appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored, alongside Jay Anderson from Project Unity, archaeologist and YouTuber Dr. Flint Dibble, Jimmy Corsetti from the Bright Insight Podcast, Dan Richards from DeDunking the Past, and archaeologist and YouTuber Milo Rossi (AKA Miniminuteman).

Watch the discussion here: