on science

This post title is a bit bold. what i want to say is, what is science and how science works.

i guess many people have idea on the word "science". people may think, "oh, physics, chemistry, biology, social science are science." well, they are right, but it is not so precise.

in fact, science is a name of methodology. there are many ways the understand and explain the world, like religion, like fortune-telling, like meditation, Voodoo. However, none of those are more powerful than science. the power of science comes from the ability to modify the world. while others method, either telling you accept the world or try to change your mind, or fail in changing the world.

in the past, people only know little bit about nature, and of course, feel helpless when facing natural events, like raining, drying, storm, snow, etc. all they can do is, changing their mind, to fit the nature, to make themselves feel good. the nature is unchangeable, and human has to move around it.

Later, in ancient Greek, people found out that, the nature is following some sorts of rule, and those rule can be expressed in mathematics. like the polygon, lines and circle, conic section. the ancient Greek also use the power of mathematics to measure the size of the world!! to found out the missing gold in King's crown. to understand the market, how people sell and trade. and then they use the power of mathematics, basic mechanics, like pulleys and levels, to build gaint building. to change the living environment. After that time, the human is in the central, and natural is moving around us. we no longer have to change ourselves to fit the nature, we can make the nature to fit us. we becomes active, not passive anymore. we can control our faith, not waiting for the nature.

So, what is science? science is a methodology, that, we make hypothesis, we check it by experiment, and we correct the hypothesis and form a theory. in fact, human and even animal do the same things. The basic of science is "try and error". so simple, and cannot be more simpler. we actually, every people use it in everyday!

However, the differences between science and others, like Voodoo or pseudo-science are, the logic and "controlled-experiment". i am not going to talk deep in logic, it is because i am not good at it and i am not a understood it well enough. But, i can point out one common mistake people will make is, say, for example, "when it is raining, people bring umbrella" is equal to "when people bring umbrella, it is raining". most people from this example can see these 2 things are not equal. however, since it is daily issue, people are familiar with. When we are facing un-familiar situation, we are easy to make this mistake.

the "controlled -experiment" is a key for differentiate science and other subject. say, "social-science". in my understanding, social science cannot do any "controlled experiment", it even worse then psychology, as psychology can do controlled experiment to check a theory. basically, for me, social science is little more than statistic + psychology + economy. that is. when people say something "non-science", mostly means, the theory does not checked by a controlled experiment. Say, Fu-shiu, as i said long time ago, it is not science, it may be correctly predict something at sometimes, but that "correct" is not more than tossing a coin and you will get what you want. one more example is, the "myth-buster" in Discovery channel. ok, they do experiment to verify a "myth". but the way to do is not scientific at all. they only do one times and in a very specific condition, without any data but just video. without any theory prediction but just the "myth"prediction. and most important is, those experiment almost cannot be REPEATED! For me, it is just a fun show that prove nothing. but any way, that is a good show.

lets me sum up, science is a methodology to understand the nature, by undeniable logic, by controlled experiment, and by repeatable experiment, to form a theory that is true for anywhere, anytime.

the consequence is.  we can fill out a whole library with scientific knowledge. but it is very hard to fill a bookshelf with religion or Voodoo, or Fu-Shiu. i believe, it is reflecting how the nature is. the nature is very complicated, has alot different varieties. if the the natural knowledge is on the bible or Koran, i will very disappointed as the god made the world so "hea". ( "hea" is a Cantonese slug that means "not putting any effort" )

清大彭明輝的部落格: 賈伯斯？他到底為這世界做了什麼好事？

清大彭明輝的部落格: 賈伯斯？他到底為這世界做了什麼好事？: 我已經好幾次被問及：「你對賈伯斯（Steve Jobs）有何看法？」我答不上來。除了大略知道他讓 Apple 賺大錢，讓大家都想要有一隻 iphone、ipad、ibbok，此外我對他一無所知 ――他生產的東西沒有一樣是我所需要的！ 我知道他改變了這個世界 ――這個世界最膚淺...

Life span

a simple method to estimate a life time on anything.

assume anything we encounter is at 30% to 70% of its life time. Thus the roughly end time will be 1.5 to 3 times of its current age.

The result behind is, the normalized age of everything should follow normal distribution. By mean of normalized age, we scale the age to be 1 until for everything.

Say myself, I am 27, thus, I will die some time around 45 to 80 years old.

friendship will last around this range. For 10 years old friend, can last for 5 more years, to 20 years. If I don't see a 1 week friend for more then 2 weeks, the friendship probably gone.

Thus, a healing time for losing a 1 years relationship, probably not longer than 2 years.

Ok, earth is now 4.5 billion years old, so, the end of the day is between 2 billion years to 9 billion years later.

Human exist for, say, 1 million year, it probably die after 50 kilo years later.

However, it is a very rough estimation without any further knowledge. If we meet an 100 years old man, the chance for he to die in tmr is so higher then a boy at age 10. Right?

So, put yourself as god, in such a way you can foresee the future, everything. Thus, scale the life span for everything. And it should a Radom variable and all possible age happened and it follow normal distribution.

Anyway, if you don't think it is the case, it is ok. It just a chance. But, to all my dear friends, I wish to see you, especially those are interesting and I like very much.

chess ranking

one good thing about chess is, the ranking system is very scientific, logical and has meaning.

the detail can be found at Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

The system was invented by Professor Arpad Elo.

Instead of explaining the detail, i will say about what the ranking mean.

Say, John is 1200, and Mary is 1200. This mean, if the skill of John and Mary does not change after each game, Thus, the ranking means, the chance of John win is 50:50, thus, draw game of lose is also 50:50.

if 2 players has ranking 200 points different, thus, the higher ranking player has 0.75 chance of winning. i.e. 1200 vs 1000, the 1200 player will win in 3 games out of 4. Same for 1400 vs 1200. a600 vs 1400, 2000 vs 1800.

you may ask, well, if a player is stronger then the other, why he will lose, or not always win?? well, the answer is, in a game, too many random events, or the possible moves are almost infinite. Thus, only a single mistake at the very beginning of a game will change the course of the game, that, even the strongest player cannot predicted. in fact, the best human player can almost predict 5 or 6 moves.

So, basically, we can imagine every chess player is a biased coins. the best player, is the most biased coin. when you toss a coin, no matter how biased it is, there is still a chance that it will give the minor possible outcome.

by that setting, (200 different means 0.75 chance of winning) we can set up the winning chance for any ranking difference.

R(1600):R(1400) = 3:1
R(1400):R(1200) = 3:1
there fore, R(1600):R(1200)=9:1

0 -> 0.5
100-> 0.63
200-> 0.75
300->0.84
400->0.9
500->0.94
600->0.96
....

So, we can see, if 400 ranking difference, the winning chance is so high. if you want to get improvement, better within 200, otherwise, you only get self-questioning.

The similar method is applied to many other games, like sports, say tennis. The world champion is through winning many many games instead of just one tournament. Thus, compare to US Basketball season final, only 7 games to decide who is the winner is not precise enough. but still better then the world cup. for me, the statistic error is so big in the world cup, that, the winner has no point to feel so excited at all. the world cup is just like coin tossing. each coins pair only toss once and decide who is the winner. Oh... there is no more naive game than this.

an question: How to find the winning chance for 100 ranking different?? it is very simple problem. if you fail to do, probably you have to review primary school math, about ratio.

List of extreme

1. How large is a protein?
2. How small is a functionable protein?
3. How Large is a DNA can be?
4. How small is a functionable DNA?
5. How small can a gas planet can be?
6. How small a star can be?
7. How high a magnetic field can be? electric field?
8. what is the smallest distance?
9. is there more condition between E=mc^2? since we cannot convert any energy to any mass.
10. What is the biggest possible rock planet?
11. what is the size of water droplet just before it fall form a surface?
12. what is the largest size of rain?
13. what is smallest size of rain? a water molecule?
14. what is the maximum power of a lightning?
15. what is the minimum power of a lightning?
16. what is the maximum number of planet a star system can have?
17. what is the maximum number of moon a planet can have?
18. what is the highest frequency of light? gamma ray with so high energy will create positron-electron pair.
19. what is the lowest frequency of light? can you imagine, can we product a light at 1Hz? the antenna will be length    from earth to the moon.
20. what is the longest living cell? can a cell live for 10 years?
21. what is the largest power output from a system? 
22. what is the maximum refractive index can be?
23. How fast the wind on earth can be?
24. what is the largest crystal on earth?
25. what is the possible sexuality? 
26. what is the smallest living thing?

i believe most of the above questions has theoretical value. and i am going to know them all in my life.

on fortune teller

many fortune teller methods, some of them are based on minor factors, like horoscope, Astromancy, hand-reading. As Socrates said, "beware your though, it will change your behavior. beware your behavior, it will change your attitude. beware your attitude, it will determine your fate. " if we use the analogy, as "beware your date of birth, the stars position, as the season of your birth will determine the nutrition of your mother, and the season after your birth will determine how much attention you will received from your parent as they may need to work in summer and stay indoor more in winter. beware your gene, and your gene can some how reflected on your face, on your palm, or on your body, and the important of these things are obvious."

as special relativity said, we all get effect if we are in the light-cone. therefore, as we growth up, we get more effect from the history. and since the light is traveling 7.5 cycles of earth in just 1 second. basically, we all get affected by each others.

anyway, although i cannot give a clear argument on the fraud of fortune-telling, i deeply against it. my believe is simple, we have free-will to against ourself. we are not like a robot, a program a primitive life-form that only function limited. we are living creature, a highly advanced creature that the gene gave us a brain to take over the control. That, change everything. if we had "Childhood shadow", we can be healed by manipulated our mind. the possibility of NOT being ourself is a counter example of it.

anyway, what i want to talk is not above. there are other methods, like fortune-telling cards game. and i am going to explain why it does not work. and even it "works", basically is we make the prediction be real, as a psychological trap called "self-fulfilled prophecy".

the principle is, we cannot predict a random event from an other random event.

a simple example. can we predict the outcome of a coin by tossing another coin? i guess it is too obvious and require no extra explanation. as i am going to do in an abstract way which can be simplify and including this. The fact is, multiply the future with extra random, only "increase" the randomness. this is no help to predict the future. as we believe the future is the consequence of present. the more reasonable way is review the past, and figure out the relationship. that is basically science.

*********

let say the set of possible events is X, x is a member of it. this number is finite. or be infinite, depends on your counting method. but it does not matter. and Let the set of possible events in in the card game is Y, y is a member of it.

the question we want to ask is, what is the possibility of x given that y is the outcome of the game. in mathematics, P(x|y).

P(x|y) = P(x and y) / P(y)

if the card game is some how connected to the future event, thus, P(x and y ) is not equal to P(x)P(y), we said, X and Y are dependent.

Now, we can do experiment to verify the equality. P(x|y) P(y) = P(x and y), and see whether they are dependent or not. if they are independent, then

P(x|y) = P(x)

as i tossed 2 coins for 20 times and see whether i can use coin 2 to predict the coin 1. here is the result.

coin 1 X: ( H H H T T H T H T H T T T H T H T T H H)
coin 2 Y: ( H T H T H T H T T H H T H T T H H T H T)

we have
P(H and H) = 0.25
P(H and T) = 0.25
P(T and H) = 0.25
P(T and T) = 0.25
P(y=T)=0.5,
P(y=H)=0.5
P(x=T)=0.5
P(y=H)=0.5
P(H | T) = 0.5
P(T | T) = 0.5
P(H | H) = 0.5
P(T | H) = 0.5

we can see, they are independent. or if we use coin 2 to gambling the coin 1, we don't have any advantage.

We also have to notice that, we use 2 completely random events. but if the event that we want to predict is not totally random at all, thus, obviously, using an other random even to predict it is totally insane.

recently on chess board

really want to read the book from Garry Kasparov. ah.. left in Hong Kong.

this book is not about tactic, not about method, is about the mental preparation. i start the play chess regularly online after read this book. and had re-read once before.

recently, i don't have any Determination on the board. i cannot execute my plan and my objective. coz i lost the focus on the board. i cannot see the weakness, i cannot strengthen my advantage. i am being too proud when against lower rank player. that is why i lost many battles recently.

i lost the rhythm of the battle, i cannot hear the voice from my knights and bishops. the pieces is not well coordinated. they do not helping , supporting each others. my knights only flight for himself.

and i always, quickly given up the control of the center of the field and let my center become vulnerable. recent battle lost in the opening, and struggle to suicide.

At least, I don't have multiple motivations, reason for each move. That make my purpose predictable.

However, i develop some tactics on side attack, although none of them is powerful.

the fact is, i am losing faith on myself. and i don't know why..

We cannot wish for that we know not. - Voltaire

on analysis or descrip one-self

it is too bad that i forgot to bring the 3 books from Montaigne. what i am going to say below is inspired from him, a honest man ever lived in 16th century, and holding 23rd century idea.

i like to examine myself, for happiness, for sadness, for loneliness, for excitement, for how i think, to how i behave.

skipped 1000 words..........

this is completely not important, as ourselves, basically, doesn't exist. All feelings are just an illusion. However, as magician can master the illusion. we also can master the feelings.

On self-studying

The meaning of study is, through your effort and with the help of the authors, you can understand those you did not understand. You acquired a new skill and a new viewpoint to the world.

The joy of it, is, you are now able to see the world in a different way. And found that how stupid you were.

The different way is not simply as "oh, people will think in this way." coz some people's mind sucks, as many "artists" think they gave something new angle. It means, the same things can be view in a profound way, not only a new view point but also a new extension, that completely changed the way you think, not in analogically, but in logically.

A trivial example is special relativity.

Ok, let me pause a while and talk about electromagnetism. Actually it is also a profound "different way".

Before maxwell unified the electricity and magnetism. People think they are different thing. An example is, in dry weather, your hair sticks with the climb and the compass always point to the north are totally unrelated by their behavior. However, maxwell unified these 2 phenomenons. And, this is important, the unification predict a new thing. The light! Which is just an oscillation of charge. Awesome!!

The point I want to deliver in here is, a true different point of view is not just give you a new angle, usually by sticking 2 things which has common feature or characteristics, and that is easy, say, I can combine a knife with a fork at 2 ends. But that does not give you an extension. You don't know what can you do more that that by the combination! The important thing in here is application, predictive or guidance by the "different view".

You may say my definition is too high that put almost everything into trash. Well, I can only say, "why rubbish don't go to trash?"

Dark Energy FAQ

Dark Energy FAQ:

In honor of the Nobel Prize, here are some questions that are frequently asked about dark energy, or should be.

What is dark energy?

It’s what makes the universe accelerate, if indeed there is a “thing” that does that. (See below.)

So I guess I should be asking… what does it mean to say the universe is “accelerating”?

First, the universe is expanding: as shown by Hubble, distant galaxies are moving away from us with velocities that are roughly proportional to their distance. “Acceleration” means that if you measure the velocity of one such galaxy, and come back a billion years later and measure it again, the recession velocity will be larger. Galaxies are moving away from us at an accelerating rate.

But that’s so down-to-Earth and concrete. Isn’t there a more abstract and scientific-sounding way of putting it?

The relative distance between far-flung galaxies can be summed up in a single quantity called the “scale factor,” often written a(t) or R(t). The scale factor is basically the “size” of the universe, although it’s not really the size because the universe might be infinitely big — more accurately, it’s the relative size of space from moment to moment. The expansion of the universe is the fact that the scale factor is increasing with time. The acceleration of the universe is the fact that it’s increasing at an increasing rate — the second derivative is positive, in calculus-speak.

Does that mean the Hubble constant, which measures the expansion rate, is increasing?

No. The Hubble “constant” (or Hubble “parameter,” if you want to acknowledge that it changes with time) characterizes the expansion rate, but it’s not simply the derivative of the scale factor: it’s the derivative divided by the scale factor itself. Why? Because then it’s a physically measurable quantity, not something we can change by switching conventions. The Hubble constant is basically the answer to the question “how quickly does the scale factor of the universe expand by some multiplicative factor?”

If the universe is decelerating, the Hubble constant is decreasing. If the Hubble constant is increasing, the universe is accelerating. But there’s an intermediate regime in which the universe is accelerating but the Hubble constant is decreasing — and that’s exactly where we think we are. The velocity of individual galaxies is increasing, but it takes longer and longer for the universe to double in size.

Said yet another way: Hubble’s Law relates the velocity v of a galaxy to its distance d via v = H d. The velocity can increase even if the Hubble parameter is decreasing, as long as it’s decreasing more slowly than the distance is increasing.

Did the astronomers really wait a billion years and measure the velocity of galaxies again?

No. You measure the velocity of galaxies that are very far away. Because light travels at a fixed speed (one light year per year), you are looking into the past. Reconstructing the history of how the velocities were different in the past reveals that the universe is accelerating.

How do you measure the distance to galaxies so far away?

It’s not easy. The most robust method is to use a “standard candle” — some object that is bright enough to see from great distance, and whose intrinsic brightness is known ahead of time. Then you can figure out the distance simply by measuring how bright it actually looks: dimmer = further away.

Sadly, there are no standard candles.

Then what did they do?

Fortunately we have the next best thing: standardizable candles. A specific type of supernova, Type Ia, are very bright and approximately-but-not-quite the same brightness. Happily, in the 1990′s Mark Phillips discovered a remarkable relationship between intrinsic brightness and the length of time it takes for a supernova to decline after reaching peak brightness. Therefore, if we measure the brightness as it declines over time, we can correct for this difference, constructing a universal measure of brightness that can be used to determine distances.

Why are Type Ia supernovae standardizable candles?

We’re not completely sure — mostly it’s an empirical relationship. But we have a good idea: we think that SNIa are white dwarf stars that have been accreting matter from outside until they hit the Chandrasekhar Limit and explode. Since that limit is basically the same number everywhere in the universe, it’s not completely surprising that the supernovae have similar brightnesses. The deviations are presumably due to differences in composition.

But how do you know when a supernova is going to happen?

You don’t. They are rare, maybe once per century in a typical galaxy. So what you do is look at many, many galaxies with wide-field cameras. In particular you compare an image of the sky taken at one moment to another taken a few weeks later — “a few weeks” being roughly the time between new Moons (when the sky is darkest), and coincidentally about the time it takes a supernova to flare up in brightness. Then you use computers to compare the images and look for new bright spots. Then you go back and examine those bright spots closely to try to check whether they are indeed Type Ia supernovae. Obviously this is very hard and wouldn’t even be conceivable if it weren’t for a number of relatively recent technological advances — CCD cameras as well as giant telescopes. These days we can go out and be confident that we’ll harvest supernovae by the dozens — but when Perlmutter and his group started out, that was very far from obvious.

And what did they find when they did this?

Most (almost all) astronomers expected them to find that the universe was decelerating — galaxies pull on each other with their gravitational fields, which should slow the whole thing down. (Actually many astronomers just thought they would fail completely, but that’s another story.) But what they actually found was that the distant supernovae were dimmer than expected — a sign that they are farther away than we predicted, which means the universe has been accelerating.

Why did cosmologists accept this result so quickly?

Even before the 1998 announcements, it was clear that something funny was going on with the universe. There seemed to be evidence that the age of the universe was younger than the age of its oldest stars. There wasn’t as much total matter as theorists predicted. And there was less structure on large scales than people expected. The discovery of dark energy solved all of these problems at once. It made everything snap into place. So people were still rightfully cautious, but once this one startling observation was made, the universe suddenly made a lot more sense.

How do we know the supernovae not dimmer because something is obscuring them, or just because things were different in the far past?

That’s the right question to ask, and one reason the two supernova teams worked so hard on their analysis. You can never be 100% sure, but you can gain more and more confidence. For example, astronomers have long known that obscuring material tends to scatter blue light more easily than red, leading to “reddening” of stars that sit behind clouds of gas and dust. You can look for reddening, and in the case of these supernovae it doesn’t appear to be important. More crucially, by now we have a lot of independent lines of evidence that reach the same conclusion, so it looks like the original supernova results were solid.

There’s really independent evidence for dark energy?

Oh yes. One simple argument is “subtraction”: the cosmic microwave background measures the total amount of energy (including matter) in the universe. Local measures of galaxies and clusters measure the total amount of matter. The latter turns out to be about 27% of the former, leaving 73% or so in the form of some invisible stuff that is not matter: “dark energy.” That’s the right amount to explain the acceleration of the universe. Other lines of evidence come from baryon acoustic oscillations (ripples in large-scale structure whose size helps measure the expansion history of the universe) and the evolution of structure as the universe expands.

Okay, so: what is dark energy?

Glad you asked! Dark energy has three crucial properties. First, it’s dark: we don’t see it, and as far as we can observe it doesn’t interact with matter at all. (Maybe it does, but beneath our ability to currently detect.) Second, it’s smoothly distributed: it doesn’t fall into galaxies and clusters, or we would have found it by studying the dynamics of those objects. Third, it’s persistent: the density of dark energy (amount of energy per cubic light-year) remains approximately constant as the universe expands. It doesn’t dilute away like matter does.

These last two properties (smooth and persistent) are why we call it “energy” rather than “matter.” Dark energy doesn’t seem to act like particles, which have local dynamics and dilute away as the universe expands. Dark energy is something else.

That’s a nice general story. What might dark energy specifically be?

The leading candidate is the simplest one: “vacuum energy,” or the “cosmological constant.” Since we know that dark energy is pretty smooth and fairly persistent, the first guess is that it’s perfectly smooth and exactly persistent. That’s vacuum energy: a fixed amount of energy attached to every tiny region of space, unchanging from place to place or time to time. About one hundred-millionth of an erg per cubic centimeter, if you want to know the numbers.

Is vacuum energy really the same as the cosmological constant?

Yes. Don’t believe claims to the contrary. When Einstein first invented the idea, he didn’t think of it as “energy,” he thought of it as a modification of the way spacetime curvature interacted with energy. But it turns out to be precisely the same thing. (If someone doesn’t want to believe this, ask them how they would observationally distinguish the two.)

Doesn’t vacuum energy come from quantum fluctuations?

Not exactly. There are many different things that can contribute to the energy of empty space, and some of them are completely classical (nothing to do with quantum fluctuations). But in addition to whatever classical contribution the vacuum energy has, there are also quantum fluctuations on top of that. These fluctuation are very large, and that leads to the cosmological constant problem.

What is the cosmological constant problem?

If all we knew was classical mechanics, the cosmological constant would just be a number — there’s no reason for it to be big or small, positive or negative. We would just measure it and be done.

But the world isn’t classical, it’s quantum. In quantum field theory we expect that classical quantities receive “quantum corrections.” In the case of the vacuum energy, these corrections come in the form of the energy of virtual particles fluctuating in the vacuum of empty space.

We can add up the amount of energy we expect in these vacuum fluctuations, and the answer is: an infinite amount. That’s obviously wrong, but we suspect that we’re overcounting. In particular, that rough calculation includes fluctuations at all sizes, including wavelengths smaller than the Planck distance at which spacetime probably loses its conceptual validity. If instead we only include wavelengths that are at the Planck length or longer, we get a specific estimate for the value of the cosmological constant.

The answer is: 10¹²⁰ times what we actually observe. That discrepancy is the cosmological constant problem.

Why is the cosmological constant so small?

Nobody knows. Before the supernovae came along, many physicists assumed there was some secret symmetry or dynamical mechanism that set the cosmological constant to precisely zero, since we certainly knew it was much smaller than our estimates would indicate. Now we are faced with both explaining why it’s small, and why it’s not quite zero. And for good measure: the coincidence problem, which is why the dark energy density is the same order of magnitude as the matter density.

Here’s how bad things are: right now, the best theoretical explanation for the value of the cosmological constant is the anthropic principle. If we live in a multiverse, where different regions have very different values of the vacuum energy, one can plausibly argue that life can only exist (to make observations and win Nobel Prizes) in regions where the vacuum energy is much smaller than the estimate. If it were larger and positive, galaxies (and even atoms) would be ripped apart; if it were larger and negative, the universe would quickly recollapse. Indeed, we can roughly estimate what typical observers should measure in such a situation; the answer is pretty close to the observed value. Steven Weinberg actually made this prediction in 1988, long before the acceleration of the universe was discovered. He didn’t push it too hard, though; more like “if this is how things work out, this is what we should expect to see…” There are many problems with this calculation, especially when you start talking about “typical observers,” even if you’re willing to believe there might be a multiverse. (I’m very happy to contemplate the multiverse, but much more skeptical that we can currently make a reasonable prediction for observable quantities within that framework.)

What we would really like is a simple formula that predicts the cosmological constant once and for all as a function of other measured constants of nature. We don’t have that yet, but we’re trying. Proposed scenarios make use of quantum gravity, extra dimensions, wormholes, supersymmetry, nonlocality, and other interesting but speculative ideas. Nothing has really caught on as yet.

Has the course of progress in string theory ever been affected by an experimental result?

Yes: the acceleration of the universe. Previously, string theorists (like everyone else) assumed that the right thing to do was to explain a universe with zero vacuum energy. Once there was a real chance that the vacuum energy is not zero, they asked whether that was easy to accommodate within string theory. The answer is: it’s not that hard. The problem is that if you can find one solution, you can find an absurdly large number of solutions. That’s the string theory landscape, which seems to kill the hopes for one unique solution that would explain the real world. That would have been nice, but science has to take what nature has to offer.

What’s the coincidence problem?

Matter dilutes away as the universe expands, while the dark energy density remains more or less constant. Therefore, the relative density of dark energy and matter changes considerably over time. In the past, there was a lot more matter (and radiation); in the future, dark energy will completely dominate. But today, they are approximately equal, by cosmological standards. (When two numbers could differ by a factor of 10¹⁰⁰ or much more, a factor of three or so counts as “equal.”) Why are we so lucky to be born at a time when dark energy is large enough to be discoverable, but small enough that it’s a Nobel-worthy effort to do so? Either this is just a coincidence (which might be true), or there is something special about the epoch in which we live. That’s one of the reasons people are willing to take anthropic arguments seriously. We’re talking about a preposterous universe here.

If the dark energy has a constant density, but space expands, doesn’t that mean energy isn’t conserved?

Yes. That’s fine.

What’s the difference between “dark energy” and “vacuum energy”?

“Dark energy” is the general phenomenon of smooth, persistent stuff that makes the universe accelerate; “vacuum energy” is a specific candidate for dark energy, namely one that is absolutely smooth and utterly constant.

So there are other candidates for dark energy?

Yes. All you need is something that is pretty darn smooth and persistent. It turns out that most things like to dilute away, so finding persistent energy sources isn’t that easy. The simplest and best idea is quintessence, which is just a scalar field that fills the universe and changes very slowly as time passes.

Is the quintessence idea very natural?

Not really. An original hope was that, by considering something dynamical and changing rather than a plain fixed constant energy, you could come up with some clever explanation for why the dark energy was so small, and maybe even explain the coincidence problem. Neither of those hopes has really panned out.

Instead, you’ve added new problems. According to quantum field theory, scalar fields like to be heavy; but to be quintessence, a scalar field would have to be enormously light, maybe 10^-30 times the mass of the lightest neutrino. (But not zero!) That’s one new problem you’ve introduced, and another is that a light scalar field should interact with ordinary matter. Even if that interaction is pretty feeble, it should still be large enough to detect — and it hasn’t been detected. Of course, that’s an opportunity as well as a problem — maybe better experiments will actually find a “quintessence force,” and we’ll understand dark energy once and for all.

How else can we test the quintessence idea?

The most direct way is to do the supernova thing again, but do it better. More generally: map the expansion of the universe so precisely that we can tell whether the density of dark energy is changing with time. This is generally cast as an attempt to measure the dark energy equation-of-state parameter w. If w is exactly minus one, the dark energy is exactly constant — vacuum energy. If w is slightly greater than -1, the energy density is gradually declining; if it’s slightly less (e.g. -1.1), the dark energy density is actually growing with time. That’s dangerous for all sorts of theoretical reasons, but we should keep our eyes peeled.

What is w?

It’s called the “equation-of-state parameter” because it relates the pressure p of dark energy to its energy density ρ, via w = p/ρ. Of course nobody measures the pressure of dark energy, so it’s a slightly silly definition, but it’s an accident of history. What really matters is how the dark energy evolves with time, but in general relativity that’s directly related to the equation-of-state parameter.

Does that mean that dark energy has negative pressure?

Yes indeed. Negative pressure is what happens when a substance pulls rather than pushes — like an over-extended spring that pulls on either end. It’s often called “tension.” This is why I advocated smooth tension as a better name than “dark energy,” but I came in too late.

Why does dark energy make the universe accelerate?

Because it’s persistent. Einstein says that energy causes spacetime to curve. In the case of the universe, that curvature comes in two forms: the curvature of space itself (as opposed to spacetime), and the expansion of the universe. We’ve measured the curvature of space, and it’s essentially zero. So the persistent energy leads to a persistent expansion rate. In particular, the Hubble parameter is close to constant, and if you remember Hubble’s Law from way up top (v = H d) you’ll realize that if H is approximately constant, v will be increasing because the distance is increasing. Thus: acceleration.

Is negative pressure is like tension, why doesn’t it pull things together rather than pushing them apart?

Sometimes you will hear something along the lines of “dark energy makes the universe accelerate because it has negative pressure.” This is strictly speaking true, but a bit ass-backwards; it gives the illusion of understanding rather than actual understanding. You are told “the force of gravity depends on the density plus three times the pressure, so if the pressure is equal and opposite to the density, gravity is repulsive.” Seems sensible, except that nobody will explain to you why gravity depends on the density plus three times the pressure. And it’s not really the “force of gravity” that depends on that; it’s the local expansion of space.

The “why doesn’t tension pull things together?” question is a perfectly valid one. The answer is: because dark energy doesn’t actually push or pull on anything. It doesn’t interact directly with ordinary matter, for one thing; for another, it’s equally distributed through space, so any pulling it did from one direction would be exactly balanced by an opposite pull from the other. It’s the indirect effect of dark energy, through gravity rather than through direct interaction, that makes the universe accelerate.

The real reason dark energy causes the universe to accelerate is because it’s persistent.

Is dark energy like antigravity?

No. Dark energy is not “antigravity,” it’s just gravity. Imagine a world with zero dark energy, except for two blobs full of dark energy. Those two blobs will not repel each other, they will attract. But inside those blobs, the dark energy will push space to expand. That’s just the miracle of non-Euclidean geometry.

Is it a new repulsive force?

No. It’s just a new (or at least different) kind of source for an old force — gravity. No new forces of nature are involved.

What’s the difference between dark energy and dark matter?

Completely different. Dark matter is some kind of particle, just one we haven’t discovered yet. We know it’s there because we’ve observed its gravitational influence in a variety of settings (galaxies, clusters, large-scale structure, microwave background radiation). It’s about 23% of the universe. But it’s basically good old-fashioned “matter,” just matter that we can’t directly detect (yet). It clusters under the influence of gravity, and dilutes away as the universe expands. Dark energy, meanwhile, doesn’t cluster, nor does it dilute away. It’s not made of particles, it’s some different kind of thing entirely.

Is it possible that there is no dark energy, just a modification of gravity on cosmological scales?

It’s possible, sure. There are at least two popular approaches to this idea: f(R) gravity , which Mark and I helped develop, and DGP gravity, by Dvali, Gabadadze, and Porati. The former is a directly phenomenological approach where you simply change the Einstein field equation by messing with the action in four dimensions, while the latter uses extra dimensions that only become visible at large distances. Both models face problems — not necessarily insurmountable, but serious — with new degrees of freedom and attendant instabilities.

Modified gravity is certainly worth taking seriously (but I would say that). Still, like quintessence, it raises more problems than it solves, at least at the moment. My personal likelihoods: cosmological constant = 0.9, dynamical dark energy = 0.09, modified gravity = 0.01. Feel free to disagree.

What does dark energy imply about the future of the universe?

That depends on what the dark energy is. If it’s a true cosmological constant that lasts forever, the universe will continue to expand, cool off, and empty out. Eventually there will be nothing left but essentially empty space.

The cosmological constant could be constant at the moment, but temporary; that is, there could be a future phase transition in which the vacuum energy decreases. Then the universe could conceivably recollapse.

If the dark energy is dynamical, any possibility is still open. If it’s dynamical and increasing (w less than -1 and staying that way), we could even get a Big Rip.

What’s next?

We would love to understand dark energy (or modified gravity) through better cosmological observations. That means measuring the equation-of-state parameter, as well as improving observations of gravity in galaxies and clusters to compare with different models. Fortunately, while the U.S. is gradually retreating from ambitious new science projects, the European Space Agency is moving forward with a satellite to measure dark energy. There are a number of ongoing ground-based efforts, of course, and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope should do a great job once it goes online.

But the answer might be boring — the dark energy is just a simple cosmological constant. That’s just one number; what are you going to do about it? In that case we need better theories, obviously, but also input from less direct empirical sources — particle accelerators, fifth-force searches, tests of gravity, anything that would give some insight into how spacetime and quantum field theory fit together at a basic level.

The great thing about science is that the answers aren’t in the back of the book; we have to solve the problems ourselves. This is a big one.

undefined

Just say it: 十四年亂象回顧（原載七月八日《信報財經新聞》）

Just say it: 十四年亂象回顧（原載七月八日《信報財經新聞》）: 邵力競 教訓總是重複，直至領悟。 ——西洋諺語 一場突如其來的遞補機制風暴，把本已風雨飄搖的特區政府更打得七零八落。然而，冰封三尺，非一日之寒，特區施政之困局、行政機關之弱勢，非自曾蔭權始，亦絕不會以曾蔭權終。 敢問香港回歸十四年，政策議而不決、決而不行、行而不果...

民進黨曉得選舉，卻不曉得治國

inspire from this post, http://commentshk.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post_14.html

True, in a democratic society, political leaders should not only know how to lead, but also how to win as election.

However, the fact is, politician will be tested by the ability of winning as election, than tested by the ability of leadership. What if? those who is good at election by weak in political work? How exactly the ability of winning the public trust relates to the ability of leadership??

i have some thoughts, but i better save it first until the idea become mature. a naive idea is how about a general test on personality, logical thinking and humor?

Another thing related is, the promotion in company. we always dreams that, if i worked long enough or good enough in a company, i will get promoted, say, to be come a manager from an office worker. OK, the fact is, you are good as a office worker, How does it impile you can be a good manager?

On the opposite side, if you are a bad worker? May be you are a good manager!

imagine a robot city, every robot was built in specialized skill. some are good in wood coping, some are good in logistic, some are good in labour management. Then, every one was send to wood cutting department first, since they are newbie. then, the wood copping robot do a good job and get promoted! while the other do bad job in wood cutting.

there is no conclusion in this post, just raising a question.

compare to those worse

following this logic, and there is always a worse scene, then, we should thanks those psycho-killer or serious killer, coz they did not kill you, who in front of the screen right now. if your parent treat you so bad, you should feel glad, coz they did not treat you worse! if you girl friend or boy friend treat you bad, cheating you, you should thanks she or he, coz she/he did not damp you yet.

and lets see this in "Occupy Wall Street"

some people said, the slogan holder is not the 99%. he is living in US, which is already the 1% compare to the world. in fact, he is the 99% in the 1%. But, does it make his demand invalid?? 

can we just thinking, "oh, there is a worse situation, we should satisfy now." this thinking is totally come from a salve. 

a similar situation in charity or money donate, or talking about North Korean. as i responded earlier from one of my friend's blog. i said,

" looking at places that poor, sucker then us remind us how good we are. However, there is no point to feel happy or glad we lived in a better place -- coz there is a even better place. imagine a place, that, people over there look at HK is like HK look at NK. The logic is, NK's people don't know how good the world can be, but they always can compare some places worse. Can they be happy? Should they feel good?? my point is, HK sucks!!! and the "look at NK and see how good HK is and should satisfy" is a truly brainwash.

another thing is, when looking at some disable people and we should feel glad that we have a complete body. That is so naive. the difficulties which faced by those disable people is obvious. However, a normal people also struggling from many things those disable people never have to face. that is , everyone has its own difficulties and we should not be happy that we don't have others difficulties.

so, the idea "look! there is someone poor then us! lets feel glad!" is really simple, since it give us a chance to "escape" from the problems we have, that makes mankind be a "fallen angel" rather then, and it should be the "rising ape" "

and in connection between "salve". the point is, if you really living is a suck life. instead of thanks god don't give you a sucker life. Do improve it, change it, make it better. Coz, YOU CAN!

so, i my point of view, those believing "god will save them and wait for it" is, deep inside, don't believe themselves.

in last comparison, the Apple Inc, Steve Jobs. i only heard people say or infer that, "without him, the world is not as good as now". why we cannot think, "without him, the world will be much better." "without him, the world will be much more creative and diverges." again, this is the same logic that "compare to the worse".

at last.

being a scientists or engineer, if we die, and we can choose where to go, Heaven? or Hell? i definitely will go to Hell. since the Hell may be too hat, we can make an air-con. If the Hell don't have enough food, we can make DNA modified food to boost the produce. if you miss your family and friend, we can make telephone, no, the internet! compare to Heaven, Oh, boring, you got everything, what can we do??? we stay in Heaven,  eat, pray, love endlessly??? sound very boring for me.

陳雲：文言難， 白話也不易——讀張中行《文言和白話》有感

陳雲：文言難， 白話也不易——讀張中行《文言和白話》有感: 【明報專訊】國學大師章太炎曾向推動白話文運動的劉復（劉半農）說﹕「白話文不自今日始。」《詩經》裏面的詩，很多是當時的白話，《左傳》裏面的對白，也是當時白話。唐朝的語錄、變文，到今日仍可以讀得明白，例如禪宗六祖慧能的《壇經》，現在的人也毋須太多語體註釋就讀懂。



到了宋代，文人的白話著述流傳甚廣，明代更將白話的說書著錄為小說文本，於是有《三言兩怕》、《水滸傳》、《西遊記》等白話文學，連帶《三國演義》、《七俠五義》等淺白文言小說，幾十年前的小學生也視為課外讀物，當年很多坊間的印本都無註釋，電視台改編，也是盡量採用對白的原文。於是我們小學生的時候也懂得「先生大駕光臨，有失遠迎，望祈恕罪」、「相請不如偶遇，就到寒舍飲杯水酒好麼」之類的客套。豈有如今日的大陸人，稱己妻為「夫人」，稱自家為「府上」，店舖搬家，門口自貼「喬遷啟事」？



張中行的《文言與白話》（一九八八初版，二〇〇七重印），就講述了文言與白話的悠長歷史，文言與白話是彼此互相交通的，難分難解的。你誤以為是文言的，其實是古老的白話。你以為白話容易懂，其實文言更容易讀，因為白話到了下一代，失去口傳之後，很多語彙變成「死語」，無從稽考。



寧馨兒、阿堵物、莫須有



《詩經》很難讀懂，就因為很多詩歌是民謠，是白話詩，那白話經歷戰國與秦朝之後，口頭傳承斷了，就難解了。《楚辭》難讀，也由於內含太多失傳的楚國白話。反而文言由於有既定的通行語彙，承先啟後，歷代傳承，到了現在，我們也可以讀懂《史記》。



至於讀《史記》，敘述的部分用文言，容易讀；對話的部分用白話（漢朝的白話），就好難讀。《史記·陳涉世家》記載，陳涉稱王之後，榮華富貴，窮鄉里來探他，便感嘆﹕「夥頤！涉之為王沉沉者。」夥頤就是白話的感嘆詞，沒得解的。 魏晉史書的「阿堵物」（此物）和「寧馨兒」（如此孩兒），都是口語。寧馨後來改換語義，變成俊秀美好，合音之後，在粵語口語傳承下來，就是那個「靚」字，問你服未？宋朝秦檜向岳飛講的白話「莫須有」，我們仍在用，但意義如何，就眾說紛紜，考證不出，要等到近代語言學家呂叔湘，才考據出是「恐怕有」、「別是有」的意思，方始有個定論。粵語的「怕且有」，也只有粵人明白。宋朝的口語詞「恁」，例如歐陽修的《玉樓春．酒美春濃花世界》詞﹕「已去少年無計奈，且願芳心長恁在。」那恁字不是艱深的文言，原來是廣東人依然掛在口邊、但變了音的「咁」。粵語很多語助詞，今日有些講普通話的北方人視為「南蠻鳥語」，其實是古代的白話。



《尚書》（書經）難讀，不是由於用的是文言文，而是用的是周朝的口語。《三國演義》可以流行，是由於敘述和對話都用了簡淺的文言；《水滸傳》有些難讀，是由於對話用了宋朝的山東白話。然而，由於不用白話來寫對白，《三國演義》的人物性格塑造不及《水滸傳》之豐富。這些觀念，都要弄清楚的。



誤以為講話容易



口語先於文獻，口傳先於刻印，這是無可置疑的，所謂文言，是基於白話基礎，不同語區的人聚在一起，要寫或者講某種大家都明白的語詞套式，就成了文言。漢朝是中國文化最為關鍵的朝代，除了經典（五經）、祭禮（周禮）、行政領域（郡縣）及官制（儒官）之外，最重要的，是中國的文字和言談方式在漢朝定下。漢朝有字典（《說文》），簡易、明辨而優美的漢字書寫方式（漢楷），並有中國歷史的故事講述方法﹕《史記》和《漢書》。歷代文人讀書，必須精讀《史》、《漢》，否則難以掌握最先的漢文敘事方法。



文言是通用中文（common Chinese）的根底，也是接通漢土和周邊古漢文區（日本、韓國、越南）的基礎。很多香港的老師、家長或學生以為白話容易而文言困難，為了寫好白話，便要學普通話。其實白話也是很難寫得好的，有時比文言更難寫得好。文言只是詞語偶有古奧，但有規格可循，有辭書可解，自漢朝之後就定型，也不受方言限制；白話則規格鬆散，而且是否以方言入文，依方言寫作之後的文句韻律如何，其他省市的人看起來能不能解，後世的人看了能不能解，嚴肅的作家、官方的秘書落筆的時候，這些都是要考慮的。即使依照北京方言或中州方言，也要考慮能否通解及文句韻律的問題，能否望文生義、文句鏗鏘，不是真的可以「我手寫我口」。



白話是用來創新思想的



即使開口講話，都要邊說邊想，不斷調整過來的，看看對方是否明白，我能否講得更好一點。講話並非容易的事，「我手寫我口」的說法，之所以可以迷惑人心，大概就是以為講話純是肌肉動作，書寫是思想動作。文人寫白話，絕不是鬧着玩，貪圖低俗，容易流傳，而是要開動思想，只有活潑的白話才可以擺脫文獻羈絆，創新思想，禪宗的語錄、機鋒，宋明理學家的語錄，如王陽明的《傳習錄》，用的就是白話。



民初用洋化的白話，創新了什麼思想呢？有幾多部哲學思想巨著留下呢？白話文的方向，是否應該再回想一下？



《文言和白話》

作者：張中行

出版：中華書局

undefined

Slavoj Zizek speaks at Occupy Wall St

//personally, i suggest to read first, coz the speech is quite losing strength....

[They are saying] we are all losers, but the true losers are down there on Wall Street. They were bailed out by billions of our money. We are called socialists, but here there is already socialism — for the rich. They say we don’t respect private property. But in the 2008 financial crash-down more hard-earned private property was destroyed than if all of us here were to be destroying it night and day for weeks. They tell you we are dreamers; the true dreamers are those who think things can go on indefinitely the way they are. We are not dreamers; we are the awakening from the dream that is turning into a nightmare. We are not destroying anything; we are only witnessing how the system is destroying itself. We all know [inaudible] from cartoons. The cat reaches a precipice, but it goes on walking, ignoring the fact that there is nothing beneath its ground. Only when it looks down and notices it he falls down. This is what we are doing here. We are telling the guys there on Wall Street, ‘Hey! Look down!’

[inaudible] “… In 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on TV, film, and in novels all stories that [inaudible -- something about portraying "alternate realities or time travel"]. This is a good sign for China; it means people still dream about alternatives, so attacked and prohibited is dreaming. Here we don’t think of prohibition because [inaudible -- "history"?] has even oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It’s easy to imagine the end of the world — an asteroid destroying all of life, and so on — but we cannot imagine the end of capitalism. So what are we doing here? Let me tell you a wonderful old joke from Communist times. A guy was sent to work in East Germany from Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends, ‘Let’s establish a code. If a letter you get from me is written in blue ink, it is true what I say; if it is written in red ink, it is false.’ After a month, his friends get a first letter. Everything is in blue. It says, this letter: ‘Everything is wonderful here. The stores are full of good food, movie theatres show good films from the West, apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot find is red ink.’ This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want, but what we are missing is red ink: the language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom, ‘war on terror,’ and so on, falsifies freedom. And this is what you are doing here: You are giving all of us red ink.

“There is a danger: Don’t fall in love with yourselves. We have a nice time here. But remember: Carnivals come cheap. What matters is the day after when we will have to return to normal life. Will there be any changes then? I don’t want you to remember these days, you know, like, ‘Oh, we were young, it was beautiful…’ Remember that our basic message is, ‘We are allowed to think about alternatives.’ A taboo is broken. We do not live in the best possible world. But there is a long road ahead. There are truly difficult questions that confront us. We know what we do not want, but what do we want? What social organization can replace capitalism? What type of new leaders do we want? Remember: The problem is not corruption or greed; the problem is the system which pushes you to be corrupt. Beware not only of the enemies, but also of false friends who are already working to dilute this process in the same way you get coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, ice cream without fat. They will try to make this into a harmless moral protest, a decaffeinated protest. But the reason we are here is that we have had enough of the world where to recycle Coke cans to give a couple of dollars to charity, or to buy a Starbucks cappuccino where one percent goes to Third World starving children is enough to make us feel good. After outsourcing work and torture [inaudible -- calls for "mic check"]… We can see that for a long time, we allowed our political engagement also to be outsourced. We want it back.

“We are not Communists, if Communism means the system which collapsed in 1990. Remember that today those Communists are the most efficient, ruthless capitalists. In China today we have a capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism but doesn’t need democracy, which means, when you criticism capitalism, don’t allow yourselves to be blackmailed that you are ‘against democracy.’ The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over. A change is possible.

“Now, what we consider today possible — just follow the media. On the one hand is technology and sexuality — everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon, you can become immortal by biogenetics, you can have sex with animals or whatever. But look at the field of society and economy — there, almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes a little bit for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible. We lose competitivity. You want more money for healthcare, they tell you, ‘Impossible! This means a totalitarian state.’ Is there something wrong with the world where you are promised to be immortal but they cannot spend a little more for healthcare? Maybe we have to set our priorities straight. We don’t want higher standards of living; we want better standards of living. The only sense in which we are Communists is that we care for the commons: the commons of nature, the commons of what is privatized by intellectual property, the commons of biogenetics. For this, and only for this, we should fight. Communism failed absolutely, but the problems of the commons are here. They are telling you we are not American here, but the conservative fundamentalists who claim they are ‘really’ Americans have to be reminded of something: What is Christianity? It’s the Holy Spirit. What is the Holy Spirit? It’s an egalitarian community of believers who are linked by love for each other and who only have their own freedom and responsibility to do it. In this sense the Holy Spirit is here now, and down there on Wall Street there are millions [?] who are worshiping blasphemous idols. So all we need is patience.

“The only thing I’m afraid of is that we will someday just go home, and then we will meet once a year, drinking beer and nostalgically remembering what a nice time we had here. Promise ourselves that this will not be the case. You know that people often desire something but do not really want it. Don’t be afraid to really want what you desire.”



『（他們說）我們全是失敗者，其實真正的失敗者就在華爾街裡，他們要靠我們付出數以十億計的金錢救濟才能脫困；有人說我們是社會主義者，但其實這裡早就存在社會主義——是專為富人而設的社會主義；他們又說我們不尊重私有產權，但在2008年的金融海嘯裡，許多人辛勤工作買來的私有產業都被摧毀了，數量之巨，就算我們這裡所有人日以繼夜去動手破壞，幾個星期也破壞不完；他們又告訴大家，我們這群人正在作夢，其實真正在作夢的，是那些以為現有的一切將會永遠持續下去的人。我們不是在作夢，我們是在喚醒一個正在變成噩夢的夢想；我們沒有破壞任何東西，我們只是在目擊這個制度如何自我毀滅。大家都熟悉這段卡通片情節：那隻卡通貓走到懸崖邊上，還是繼續跑出去，沒理會下面已經空空如也，只有當牠向下看時，方才發現這個事實，然後就掉下去了。我們在這裡正是要做這樣的事情：我們要告訴華爾街那些傢伙：「喂！看看下面！」

『2011年4月，中國政府禁止了電視、電影和小說裡一切含有「另類現實」或描寫時間旅行的故事情節，這對中國來說是個好的徵兆：人們仍然夢想另有出路，因此政府才要出手禁制。在這裡我們就連禁制都不必要，因為統治體制連我們夢想的能力也早就壓制下去了。看看我們常看的電影，我們很容易就想像出世界末日——比如一顆隕石掉下來殺死所有生命之類——可是我們卻很難想像資本主義的末日。那麼我們正在這裡幹甚麼？讓我告訴大家共產時代一個精采的老笑話：有個傢伙從東德給派到西伯利亞工作，他知道自己的郵件都會被人監看，因此他告訴朋友：「我們定一個暗號，假如我的信件用藍墨水寫，裡面說的都是真話；如果我用紅墨水，說的都是假話。」一個月後他的朋友收到他第一封信：「這兒一切都美好，商店裡塞滿了好吃的食品，戲院播放著來自西方的好電影，住宅又大又豪華。唯一買不到的東西就是紅墨水。」這就是我們的生活模式。我們擁有一切想要的自由，但卻缺少了紅墨水：能夠清楚表達我們「非自由」的語言。我們被教會的那種談論自由的方式，例如「反恐戰爭」之類詞語，已經篡改了自由的意義。而你們正在給大家送上紅色的墨水。

『這次運動有一個危機：請大家不要自我感覺良好。不錯，我們在這裡很開心，但請你們記著：搞一個嘉年華會很容易，真正重要的是在我們回到正常生活後那天。到時候是否有任何事情改變了？我不希望大家回憶這段日子的方式，就是「噢，我們那時候多年輕，那次運動真美好……」之類。要牢記著我們最基本的信息：「我們可以思考其他的生活方式。」一個禁忌被打破了。我們並不是活在可能裡最好的世界。但在我們面前還有一條漫長的道路，要面對一些真正困難的問題。我們知道自己不想要甚麼，可是我們想要甚麼？怎麼樣的社會組織能夠取代資本主義？我們希望擁有甚麼類型的新領袖？記著：問題不在於腐敗和貪婪；問題在於一個把人推向腐敗的制度。不只要提防你的敵人，也要防範那些虛假的盟友，他們已經開始把這個運動淡化，就像製造沒有咖啡因的咖啡、沒有酒精的啤酒、沒有脂肪的冰淇淋一樣。他們試圖把這次運動變成一次無害的道德抗議，一次「脫咖啡因」的抗議。然而我們來到這裡的原因，正正就是受夠了這個偽善的世界：循環再造一堆可樂罐以捐兩塊錢做善事，又或者去星巴克買杯卡布奇諾咖啡，把一個巴仙捐贈給第三世界的飢餓兒童，就足以感覺良好。當我們把工作和酷刑都外判了，甚至連愛情生活都外判給婚姻介紹所之後……我們可以看見，在一段很長的日子裡，我們容許自己的政治參與也「外判」了，假別人之手進行。現在我們要把這個權力取回來。

『我們不是共產主義者——假如所指的是在1990年已經崩潰的那個共產主義的話。別忘記今天的那些所謂共產主義者，只是一群最有效率、最不擇手段的資本主義者。今日存在於中國的是一個比美國的資本主義動力更強，卻又不需要民主的資本主義制度。因此當你批評資本主義時，不要讓別人扣上「反民主」的帽子。民主與資本主義之間的聯姻已經終結了。改變是可能的事情。

『今天的人們相信有甚麼是可能做到的？看看媒體的報導。這邊廂，由科技到性慾，好像甚麼都有可能。你能夠去月球旅行，用生物基因科技達到長春不老，可以跟動物做愛，諸如此類。但另一邊廂，一碰上社會經濟的範疇，幾乎一切都被視為不可能。你想加一點富裕階層的賦稅嗎？他們會告訴你不可能，我們將因此失去競爭力；要把多些錢投入公共醫療保障嗎？他們會說：「不可能！這做法等於極權國家。」當人們得到允諾將要長春不老的同時，卻不允許花多一點錢在醫療保障上——這樣的世界不是很有問題嗎？也許我們應該把事情的優先次序搞明白：我們不是要求「更高」的生活水準；我們要的是「更好」的生活水準！要說我們跟共產主義者有甚麼唯一的相似之處，那就是我們關心普羅群眾：大自然裡的群眾；活在知識產權私有化底下的群眾；在生物基因科技下的群眾。我們應該為此而戰鬥，也只為此而戰鬥。共產主義徹底失敗了，可是群眾面對的問題仍在。那些人告訴你，我們聚集在這兒的都不是真正的美國人。但我們要提醒那些自稱「真正」美國人的保守原教旨主義人士：甚麼是基督精神？是聖靈。甚麼是聖靈？是一群信仰者組成的一個平均主義團體，他們以互愛的精神彼此連繫，並且只憑自由意志與義務責任心去實踐這個理想。這麼看，聖靈現在其實就在這裡，而在華爾街那頭的銀行家，都是一群褻瀆偶像的崇拜者。因此我們需要的只是耐心。

『我唯一害怕的，是我們有一天就此回家，然後每年在這兒聚聚頭，喝喝啤酒，懷緬我們在這裡曾經擁有過的美好時光。我們要向自己承諾不要變成那樣。大家都知道，人們總是渴望一些東西，卻又不是真的想爭取它。不要害怕爭取你渴望的東西。多謝各位！』