I’m Back from My Recovery Experience

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 3 Comments

I have returned from my vacation! I mean, my recovery experience. You may be wondering where I went.

  • I went to space! (By which I mean I visited the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles and saw a bunch of cool space exhibits.)
  • I went back in time! (By which I mean I visited the La Brea tar pits, also in Los Angeles, and saw the remains of many long extinct creatures.)
  • I survived a futuristic dystopia! (By which I simply mean I was in Los Angeles.)

Joking aside, it was a great vacation. My “recovery experience” has left me feeling thoroughly recovered and eager to get back to writing.

Obviously I have a lot of Tomorrow News Network to work on, but I’m not sure yet what I’ll be writing about for this blog. I feel like it’s been awhile since I said anything about Jupiter. I wonder if any Jupiter news happened while I was away.

Sciency Words: Recovery Experience

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 7 Comments

Sciency Words BIO copy

Today’s post is part of a special series here on Planet Pailly called Sciency Words. Each week, we take a closer look at an interesting science or science-related term to help us all expand our scientific vocabularies together. Today’s term is:

RECOVERY EXPERIENCE

You’re feeling stressed. Weary. Burned out. You have too much work piled on top of you.

It might be tempting, whenever you can take a break, to just stop and do nothing. Nothing at all. You only have so much energy. You feel like your mental resources are running low. It makes sense to try to conserve what little you have left, but is that really your best option?

Have a Recovery Experience Instead

Some psychologists recommend that when you feel like your mental resources are running low, don’t just shut down. Don’t try to conserve what’s left.

Instead, do something fun. Even better, do something creative. Like coloring. Or writing poetry. Or playing with Legos (my new favorite). Even something like redecorating your workspace can engage your creative mind.

This is called a recovery experience, because rather than trying to conserve your mental resources by doing nothing, you recover your resources by being creative.

My Experience with Recovery Experiences

I first encountered this term over a year ago. I was writing a blog post about the whole adult coloring book trend and the science allegedly behind it.

As a workaholic (or perhaps I should call myself a write-aholic), I often feel guilty about doing anything other than writing. Having a sciency word like “recovery experience” has helped me get past my guilt.

  • I’m not wasting time playing video games; I’m having a recovery experience.
  • I’m not wasting time building Lego models; this is a recovery experience.
  • I’m not wasting time antiquing; I’m enjoying a recovery… no, actually this isn’t fun for me. This is wasting my time.

Typically, recovery experiences leave me feeling energized and ready for more writing.

And this summer, I’m planning a nice, long recovery experience, with no writing on the agenda at all. This despite the fact that I have a huge writing project to worry about. This despite the fact that I’m getting super stressed about said project and about writing in general (in fact, that’s the very reason I need a recovery experience so badly right now).

Basically, today’s post is a roundabout way of saying I’m going on vacation. I’ll be back in two or three weeks.

Space Harpoons: They’re a Real Thing

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 6 Comments

If the future of space exploration requires an economic incentive, look no further than asteroid mining. All the rare and valuable minerals and metals contained in a single asteroid (except those lousy S-type asteroids) could be worth billions.

But catching an asteroid and landing on it for mining purposes… that’s much easier said than done. You see, no two asteroids are exactly alike, and they each present a host of challenges for asteroid hunters of the future.

Jn22 Crazy Asteroids

There are several ideas for how to catch an asteroid. You could throw a net around it, assuming the asteroid isn’t too big. Or you could latch on with magnets, assuming the asteroid has a high enough metal content.

But the most common idea that I’ve seen is the shoot the asteroid with a harpoon. It makes the whole endeavor feel oddly reminiscent of old timey whaling. You know, like in Moby Dick. Or Star Trek IV.

As I understand it, the harpoon has a cable attached, so once you’ve harpooned yourself an asteroid you can reel your spacecraft in to a secure landing. Or in the case of those wildly spinning asteroids, the asteroid will reel you in by wrapping the cable around itself (what could go wrong?).

So the next time you’re in space trying to grab billions of dollars worth of asteroid, remember to bring a harpoon. And a really strong cable.

P.S.: Also, if an asteroid somehow manages to bite off your leg, maybe it’s best to let it go. As Mission Commander Ahab will tell you, vendettas against whales and asteroids never lead to happy endings.

Molecular Monday: When Isomers Attack

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 3 Comments

As a science fiction writer, I’ve come to believe that chemistry is the most important science for me to research. Chemistry is often defined as “the study of matter and its properties.” It’s hard to tell a story set in our universe without “matter and its properties” getting involved somehow.

However, I do believe there are limits to what I need to know.

What are Isomers?

In the previous Molecular Monday post, I introduced you to the molecule known as octane. Or rather, I introduced you to a molecule known as octane.

Jn20 Octane Isomers
Quiet! You’re all octane.

When you can have multiple versions of the same molecule, the different versions are called isomers. There are 18 isomers of octane (24 if chirality gets involved). Each has eight carbon atoms and eighteen hydrogens, but they’re put together in different shapes.

Isomers can have different freezing points or boiling points, different reactivities, different stabilities…. Professional chemists certainly need to know this. At some point, it may even be relevant for a Sci-Fi story.

An Isomer by Any Other Name…

The story of how octane got its name is quite simple. Unfortunately, naming conventions for the various isomers of octane get complicated. By following the naming guidelines set by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), some of octane’s isomers are officially called:

  • 3-Methylheptane
  • 2,2-Dimethylhexane
  • 3-Ethyl-2-methylpentane
  • 2,2,3,3,-Tetramethylbutane

Now there’s a heck of a lot of information about chemical composition and structure encoded into these names. I can see how these kinds of names are useful… if you know how to decode them.

Which I don’t.

There’s a certain point where I have to remind myself that I am just a science fiction writer; I don’t have to learn everything. Maybe I’ll end up learning this IUPAC code; maybe not. Right now, I think it’s enough for me to know what an isomer is, why isomers matter, and that a well-thought-out naming convention exists (if I ever need it).

And if something like 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane does pop up in one of my stories (or more likely, if I see a name like that during my research), at least I have some idea how to find out what it means.

Sciency Words: Endosymbiosis

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 6 Comments

Sciency Words MATH

Today’s post is part of a special series here on Planet Pailly called Sciency Words. Each week, we take a closer look at an interesting science or science-related term to help us all expand our scientific vocabularies together. Today’s term is:

ENDOSYMBIOSIS

The story goes like this: long ago (roughly 1.5 to 2 billion years ago), two single-celled organisms reached a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Jn17 Endosymbiosis 1

Or perhaps one single-celled organism imposed a mutually beneficial arrangement on another.

Jn17 Endosymbiosis 2

Whichever way it happened, the result is what we now call endosymbiosis. It’s a term which comes from a bunch of Greek words meaning “living together” and “inside.”

The word endosymbiosis can be used to describe any mutually beneficial (non-parasitic) relationship where one organism lives inside another. Think of the bacteria living in your stomach helping you digest your food.

But typically, the term seems to be reserved for such relationships between single-celled organisms. One cell is called the host. The other—the one living inside the host—is called the endosymbiont.

Each individual cell in your body contains tiny internal structures called organelles. This is true not only for humans but all animals and plants, and many microorganisms, such as the amoeba or the paramecium. The presence of organelles is one defining characteristic for all eukaryotic life forms on Earth (as opposed to prokaryotic life forms like bacteria or archaea).

It is believed that, at some point in evolutionary history, all these organelles started out as endosymbionts. Some organelles, like mitochondria and chloroplasts, still have their own DNA separate from the DNA of the cell nucleus.

But at what point did the transition occur? At what point should we stop calling something an endosymbiont and start calling it an organelle? That question gets into some murky territory for biology. The distinction between organelles and endosymbionts is rather too poorly defined at the moment for a Sciency Words post.

Real Science vs. Fake Science

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 11 Comments

In writing this blog, I’m trying to teach myself science. Real science. At least, enough real science to be able to write competent science fiction.

My00 Astro-James

Since most news articles about science are embarrassingly unreliable (damn those shruggies!), I end up reading a lot of scientific papers. And there’s something I’ve noticed. It’s like there’s a pattern to how scientific papers are written (at least, the legitimate ones).

Science Done Right

Taken as a whole, scientific papers sort of read like this:

Hey, I (or we) just noticed this weird thing which might have implications for how we think about other things. Here’s my (or our) best guess about what’s going on here, and here’s all the details so you can check this weird thing out for yourself. Hopefully we (the scientific community) can get to the bottom of this mystery.

A recent paper on the Planet Nine hypothesis is a great example (click here). In the paper, researchers explain that they’ve noticed something odd happening in the scattered disk region of our Solar System.

The researchers’ best guess is that an as-yet-undetected planet is perturbing the scattered disk. They then present all their data. All of it. Not just the parts that support their hypothesis. This shows that the researchers didn’t cherry-pick data to suit their idea. And in the end, the paper suggests new lines of research that could help prove or disprove this whole Planet Nine thing.

Doing Science Wrong

I’ve also encountered another kind of paper, a paper that reads more like this:

I (or we) hereby proclaim a new discovery which proves (or disproves) this other thing. End of discussion.

Sometimes these papers will also say things like:

We did an experiment. You can trust that we did it right. Here is some of our data; just the stuff that we believe is relevant.

And often, these papers will end with a line like:

Why, oh why, is the scientific community conspiring against me (or us) to hide the truth?

Real Science vs. Fake Science

In order to understand how real science works, you have to also learn a little about fake science so that you can tell the difference.

Fortunately, fake science is fairly easy to identify. There are so many red flags: bold proclamations, lack of detail concerning experimental methods, withholding experimental data that is deemed “irrelevant.” The whole “conspiracy to hide the truth” thing comes up a lot too. According to fake scientists:

Anyone who disputes my brilliant theory must be part of the conspiracy!

Meanwhile, real scientific papers tend to feel like a conversation. Mind you, it’s not always a polite conversation. One paper might be an opening argument, the next a rebuttal, and so forth. Scientific egos bruise easily, it seems, but eventually some sort of consensus is achieved.

At least until someone notices another weird thing which might have implications for whatever the consensus opinion turned out to be.

Sciency Words: Shruggie

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 3 Comments

Sciency Words BIO copy

Today’s post is part of a special series here on Planet Pailly called Sciency Words. Each week, we take a closer look at an interesting science or science-related term to help us all expand our scientific vocabularies together. Today’s term is:

SHRUGGIE

We all know what quacks are. They’re people trying to sell you pseudoscientific garbage that will benefit your health, beauty, intelligence, sexual prowess, or whatever. We should all be on guard against quackery.

But I recently discovered another term, a term which comes to us courtesy of Val Jones at Science-Based Medicine: shruggies. I’m not sure if this term has really spread beyond the Science-Based Medicine website, but I’m definitely adding it to my vocabulary.

Shruggies are people who, when presented with pseudoscience, just shrug. Bold, unrealistic claims? Shrug. Lack of supporting evidence? Shrug. Science… pseudoscience… what’s the difference? It’s not worth arguing about.

I recently saw an example of this on television, on one of those shows where they give out free medical advise. They were talking about leeches. Yes, leeches. Apparently Demi Moore has been using them as part of her beauty regimen, and gosh doesn’t she look young and beautiful?

Of course, these aren’t just any old leeches from your local swamp. These are “medically trained” leeches (Demi Moore’s words, not mine). So if your blood is full of toxins, if your body is full of negative energy, you can turn to Mr. Leech to suck it all out.

Jn10 Dr Leech

The show’s hosts—who are supposedly real doctors—just smiled and made jokes. One of them decided to try it for himself and put a leech on his hand.

They did not endorse this leech therapy thing, but they didn’t say or do anything to discredit it either. Basically, they shrugged. And by shrugging, they sent a clear message to their viewers at home: if you want to look young and beautiful like Demi Moore, maybe leeches are worth trying.

So beware of shruggies. They’re as bad as quacks. Maybe worse.

P.S.: I should mention that the F.D.A. has approved the use of leeches for medical purposes. Apparently they can help treat certain kinds of blood clots that can be difficult to treat using other methods. I guess this is the kernel of truth at the center of this leech therapy nonsense.

Lego Mars Rover

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 7 Comments

I have a new hobby. When I’m not reading about space or writing about space or drawing pictures of space, you can probably find me in my basement building Lego things. Specifically, I’m building Lego space things.

This is my first official creation for my new Lego space program: a Mars rover.

Rover begins exploring Martian landscape.
Rover begins exploring Martian landscape.

In real life, there have been a total of four Mars rovers: Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity. I did not design mine to look specifically like any of them.

Rover reports the surface of Mars is soft and fuzzy.
Rover reports the surface of Mars is soft and fuzzy.

As a result, I don’t have a name for this little guy.

Jn08 Lego Rover 3
Rover determines that the surface of Mars is composed of 100% polyester and is “machine washable.”

So before I send my Lego rover to Lego Mars (which will surely take me a while to build), I want to get some suggestions. I’m asking for input from the public, as NASA might say.

So what do you think my Mars rover should be named?

Molecular Monday: Why Is It Called Octane?

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 5 Comments

I’m not really a car guy, so I’ve never given much thought to octane before, but since I’ve challenged myself to learn about organic chemistry, I was bound to run into this particular hydrocarbon eventually.

And I was particularly surprised (and amused) when I found out how octane got its name.

Jn06 Octane

Hydrocarbons are chemicals composed exclusively of hydrogen and carbon atoms. For the sake of simplicity, let’s ignore the hydrogen atoms (chemists often do) and look at four of the simplest hydrocarbons:

  • Methane: has one carbon atom.
  • Ethane: has two carbon atoms.
  • Propane: has three carbon atoms.
  • Butane: has four carbon atoms.

These four chemicals are members of a subcategory of hydrocarbons called alkanes (or sometimes paraffins). They were all named before their chemical structures were well understood, but for alkanes larger than butane, the naming system gets much easier to follow (assuming you’re familiar with Greek numbers).

  • Pentane: five carbon atoms.
  • Hexane: six carbon atoms.
  • Heptane: seven carbon atoms.
  • Octane: eight carbon atoms.
  • Novane: nine carbon atoms.
  • Decane: ten carbon atoms.

So that’s why we call it octane. It’s the same “oct-” that you see in octagon or octopus. In not sure this is a super important chemistry fact; it’s just something that’ll make me smile next time I’m filling up my car at the gas station.

P.S.: After decane comes undecane, dodecane, tridecane, tetradecane….

* * *

Today’s post is part of an ongoing series called Molecular Mondays. I’ve challenged myself to learn as much as I can about chemistry, and so every other Monday I try to share some interesting chemistry tidbit here on my blog.

Sciency Words: Equilibrioception

~ J.S. Pailly ~ 5 Comments

Sciency Words PHYS copy

Today’s post is part of a special series here on Planet Pailly called Sciency Words. Each week, we take a closer look at an interesting science or science-related term to help us all expand our scientific vocabularies together. Today’s term is:

EQUILIBRIOCEPTION

The best writing engages all the senses. That’s worthwhile advise most writers will get at some point in their careers, but how many senses do we humans have?

Thousands of years ago, Aristotle concluded that we have five senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. That seems reasonable enough, and five continues to be the traditional number of senses. But depending on whom you ask, you might get a different answer.

Equilibrioception is a sense we rarely have to think about, unless something goes wrong with it. It’s governed by the vestibular system, which is located in your inner ear.

Basically, equilibrioception is your perception of up and down. It’s your ability to orient yourself in relation to gravity so that you can keep your balance while standing or walking.

If you’re writing science fiction—especially hard Sci-Fi—this is a sixth sense you may want to think about (telepathy just got bumped to seventh sense!). The experience of zero-G, or fractional Gs, or Gs greater than one, could really screw with your characters’ heads.

Jn03 Which Way is Up

Even experienced astronauts are known to have equilibrioception-related problems from time to time.

As for artificial gravity, it might “feel” a bit off too. If you’re simulating gravity by rotating your spaceship, as seen in movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey, you might experience a gravity-like pull that is skewed slightly relative to the floor. Or your feet might experience slightly more Gs than your head (especially on smaller spacecraft).

So science fiction writers, remember to engage all the senses in your writing, even senses like equilibrioception that we don’t normally think about. And if you manage to give your readers a bit of vertigo, you’ve done your job well.

Links

How to Pronounce Equilibrioception

Humans Have a Lot More than Five Senses from Today I Found Out

You Don’t Actually Have Five Senses from Modern Notion.