The SCP during Nobel Week in Stockholm

(by rknop) Dec 09 2011

Much pomp and circumstance in Stockholm this week. I'll blog a bit more about it when I get a chance, but for now, here's a photo of the group that was taken yesterday during an enormous smorgasbord lunch.

Front, L to R: Alex Kim, Pilar Ruiz-Lapuente, Andy Fruchter, Richard Ellis, Julia Lee, Susana Deustua, Saul Perlmutter, Warrick Couch, Heidi Newberg, Silvia Gabi, Chris Lidman, Don Groom.

Middle: Nelson Nunes

Back, L to R: Ivan Small, Sebastien Fabbro, Greg Aldering, Robert Quimby, Brad Schaefer, Rob Knop, Reynald Pain, Carl Pennypacker, Shane Burns, Rich Muller, Ariel Goobar, Peter Nugent

Share

No responses yet

Online Talk Tomorrow (12-03) About FTL Neutrinos

(by rknop) Dec 02 2011

Tomorrow morning, December 3, at 10:00AM pacific time (18:00 UT), I'll be giving the MICA public outreach talk about the faster-than-light neutrino results from CERN and Grand Sasso. The talk will include an overview of the OPERA experiment that has led to the result, a summary of the result, my own headscratching about whether or not it's real, and some notes about what this does (and, more importantly, does not) imply about our confidence in the theory of Relativity.

The talk will be at the MICA Large Ampitheater, and all are welcome. Remember, a Second Life account is free!

Share

No responses yet

Pike vs. Pike : my contribution to the "Casual Pepper Spraying Cop" meme

(by rknop) Nov 24 2011

The original story that goes with the casual pepper-spraying cop meme is really pretty horrifying. The Internet being what it is, though, it has become a fest of image manipulation (what many people call "photoshopping", but it is no more than than photocopying is xeroxing). Casual disregard for students who were the subject of unwarranted police brutality? Or biting social commentary pointing out the incongruity of students sitting and flinching while a completely unthreatened cop strolls by and deploys violence? Who knows. But once I figured out that the name of the cop who shows up in these images is Pike, I had to throw together my own image manipulation (using the Gimp, of course):

Share

One response so far

Accelerating universe wins 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics

(by rknop) Oct 04 2011

Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess have shared the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics for the 1998 discovery that the expansion of our Universe is accelerating. This acceleration is what led us to conclude that most of the energy density of the Universe is made up of dark energy, although in the time since then there have been independent observations that point to dark energy.

My favorite comment was the one made by Martin Rees, who wishes that the Nobel Prize could be shared by more than three people, as the two groups deserved recognition in addition to the leaders of the two groups. Indeed, in 2007, the Gruber Prize in Cosmology was divided four ways: Saul, Brian, Saul's Group, and Brian's Group. (I thus shared in the "Saul's Group" part of the prize.)

Here is a link to a talk that I gave in Second Life a couple of years ago about the discovery of the accelerating universe. An audio recording of the talk is online, in addition to slides in PDF format.

Share

One response so far

Off to VCON36

(by rknop) Sep 30 2011

This weekend (Sep 30 - Oct 2) I'm heading off to VCON 36, a science fiction convention in Vancouver, BC. I'm going to be sitting on several panels (including one on digital art, one on podcasting, one on games, and one on "messy science"), and I'll be giving two talks:

  • "The Science Behind Larry Niven's Neutron Star". Larry Niven is the guest of honor, so I figured that this would be a good topic. I'll talk about what neutron stars are, and also about tidal forces (oops, I just spoiled the story for you... it's still worth reading!). This short story is one I discovered in a used bookstore back in the early years of grad school (early 1990's), and it started me on a kick of reading all of Niven's "Known Space" stories.
  • "Constructing a Space Combat Game Consistent with Newton's Laws". Last year I talked about Newton's Laws in science fiction movies and TV. This year, it's with a miniatures boardgame.
Share

2 responses so far

Thermonuclear Supernova in M101!

(by rknop) Sep 26 2011

On August 23 of this year, a supernova exploded in galaxy M101.


Discovery images from the Palomar Transient Factory

M101 is a grand design spiral a mere 22 million light years or thereabouts away (here's a summary of literature distance measurements from NED). Cosmologically speaking, that's in our back yard. The closest galaxies to our own are our satellite galaxies, including the Magellanic Clouds. However, the closest big galaxy to our own is the Andromeda Galaxy, which is about 2 million light-years away. The closest actual cluster of galaxies is the Virgo Cluster, at a distance of 65 million light-years.

Why This Is Cool

SN 2001fe is a thermonuclear supernova. These are the types of supernovae that were used to discover the acceleration of the Universe, so they're cosmologically important. As such, some have pointed out the importance of this supernova as a calibrator for that observation. However, that's of secondary importance. Yes, you really want to understand the standard candle you're using cosmologically, but the repeatability of the peak luminosity of these supernovae has already been empirically demonstrated, and that's what the cosmological result really resets on. What's more important for this supernova, however, is understanding the supernovae themselves. Supernovae are where we get the vast majority of the atoms heavier than Helium in our Universe; thermonuclear supernovae in particular are primarily responsible for the heavier elements, such as iron. Thus, these are important events not only for measuring the expansion history of the Universe, but for understanding other aspects of our history.

Beyond it being close, it is very awesome how early this supernova was discovered. It was discovered less than a day after the explosion. (Aside: well, really, 22 million years later. But I will be talking about times relative to when the light reach earth. So, when I say "the date of the explosion was August 23", what I really mean is that the first photons from the star at the moment it was exploding reached Earth on August 23.) The discovery was announced, and a wide variety of follow-up observations started within just a day or two of the explosion. Not only is this the closest thermonuclear supernova to go off during the era of ubiquitous digital imaging on telescopes, but we have also been observing it from the very beginning.

Citizen Science

Below is a lightcurve of SN2011fe, that is, a plot of its brightness versus time:

This lightcurve comes from the American Association of Variable Star Observers. It represents the work of amateur astronomers around the world. They each make observations, and submit them to the AAVSO. Historically, many of the AAVSO observations were made using the Mark 1 Eyeball. People would look at a star, and compare its brightness to other stars of known magnitude in the same field in order to figure out the target star's magnitude. Nowadays, with many amateur astronomers having digital imaging equipment, they can use that (with other stars in the field for calibration) to measure star magnitudes. The data points on the lightcurve above show the blue (B) and yellow-green (V) magnitudes of the supernova. We can see that people started submitting magnitudes within two days of the explosion of the supernova. It peaked around September 11 or 12. Today, it's still brighter than 11th magnitude, so if you've got clear skies and something like an 8-inch telescope, and if you're in the Northern hemisphere, head into your backyard after sunset and see if you can see the supernova in M101! (You'll need to use a finding chart to be able to tell what is the supernova versus what is a foreground star. Here is one from the Society for Popular Astronomy.

Supernova Progenitors

What science has come from this supernova? We're still in early days; the supernova is only a couple of weeks past maximum light, so many observations remain to be made, never mind the processing of the data. However, already a couple of papers have shown up about this supernova.

One of the outstanding questions about thermonuclear supernovae is where they come from. Most people agree that they come from a white dwarf star— a dead (no longer performing fusion) star made out of Carbon and Oxygen that is supported by "electron degeneracy pressure", which is typically half the mass of the Sun but only the size of the Earth. If one of these stars reaches a critical mass of 1.4 Solar Masses, it starts to collapse, triggering runaway fusion that completely blows it away in a thermonuclear supernova. The question, then, is how to get the white dwarf star up to this critical mass.

Most scenarios are divided into two broad classes. The "Single Degenerate" scenario is where the white dwarf has a companion star, such as a normal "main-sequence" star (like the Sun), or a red giant star. If you'd asked me ten years ago, I would have told you that the red giant companion was most likely. The "Double Degenerate" scenario starts with two smaller white dwarf stars, which merge, yielding a merger that is above the critical mass and that therefore explodes. Until the last few years, I believe that most astronomers preferred the single degenerate scenario. However, some observations in recent years have started to indicate that the double degenerate scenario may be more common.

Two papers have shown up on arXiv.org that address this. The first, Horesh et al., arXiv:1109:2912, reports on radio and X-ray observations of the supernova starting just a day after the explosion. The result: they didn't see anything. While that may sound uninteresting, in fact it is significant. A supernova has an expanding "photosphere", that is, the bright thick ball that is glowing. As time goes by, the photosphere expands at a rate slower than the gasses that make it up, because the outer layers become thin enough to see through. Outside the expanding photosphere is the blast wave, which propagates through the interstellar gas. The shock wave does two things. First, it compresses magnetic fields; electrons caught in that magnetic field will spiral around it, emitting "synchrotron radiation" in radio wavelengths. Second, it heats up the post-shock gas, which should glow in X-rays. If the supernova happened in a single-degenerate system, and if the non-degenerate companion was undergoing substantial mass loss, then the interstellar material should be thicker, which would lead to both enhanced radio and X-ray emission.

Because they didn't see any, it means that if SN2011fe came from a single-degenerate system, the companion can not have been a red giant, for no plausible model of a white dwarf/red giant binary system would have a mass loss rate low enough that the X-rays and radio waves would be undetectable. While this might suggest that SN2011fe came from a double-degenerate system, in fact the observations are still consistent with a single-degenerate system where the companion is a less evolved star: a main sequence star or a subgiant.

The other paper, Li et al., arXiv:1109.1593v1, used the adaptive optics system with an infrared camera on the Keck 10m telescope to obtain an extremely precise position for the supernova. They then went into the archives of the Hubble Space Telescope, and pulled out all pre-explosion images of M101 that were available. They used the very precise position to look to see if they could identify a progenitor star. The result:


Archival HST images of the SN2011fe location from Li et al., arXiv:1109.1593v1.

Nothing! Or, rather, nothing to the detection limits of the HST. Note that the circle on the image to the right is an error circle. That is, it's an extremely conservative error circle; "Star 1" and "Star 2" at the edge of the circle are too far away to have any reasonable chance of being the progenitor system of SN2011fe. The fact that the HST couldn't see anything also rules out a single-degenerate system consisting of a red giant star, or indeed of a single-degenerate system with a companion star more than about 4 times the mass of the Sun. Again, this might seem to favor a double-degenerate progenitor system, but it's still possible that a dimmer main-sequence star no more massive than (say) 3 or 4 times the mass of the Sun was present as the mass donor for a white dwarf.

And Onwards

This supernova is still hot. As I mentioned above, with a modest telescope, you may still be able to see it for another week or so. I predict that a lot of supernova science comes out of this event, and that we see a plethora of papers on it. It will probably become a "classic" event much in the same way that SN1987A has.

Share

3 responses so far

The true tragedy of 9/11

(by rknop) Sep 11 2011

The true tragedy of 9/11 is not just that thousands of people died in an evil and criminal attack. (Aside: I don't use the word "cowardly" like everybody else, because I have a hard time seeing how sacrificing your life in an attack on your perceived enemies is cowardly. Misguided, deluded, even evil, yes, but cowardly? Why can't we call these things what they are? Why is, somehow, "cowardly" a more stinging condemnation than evil?)

No, the true tragedy is how wildly successful those attacks were. What's more, they were successful not because of the death and destruction of the attacks themselves, but rather because of our reaction as a society to those attacks. The way the USA, in particular, has behaved in the last 10 years has served not to remember and honor those who lost their lives on 9/11. Rather, not only were they meaningless deaths, but the tragedy of their deaths have been magnified many times by our reaction and response to them.

What is the goal of a terrorist attack? I can't be sure, of course. However, the 9/11 attacks were targeted at the symbols of American power around the world: the World Trade Center, probably the largest single symbol of American financial might (our true imperialistic power at the moment); the Pentagon, the center of the American military; and the White House, the head of the American seat of government. When ideologues on our side talk about what it's for, it's because they "hate us for our freedom" and "want to destroy our way of life". I suspect on their side the more ambitious thought that these attacks would cripple the USA, undermining our imperialistic power, showing the world that we're not everything we say we are, and forcing us to further cripple ourselves by changing the way we live because we're living in fear.

Most of these goals, whether you take the ones that were perceived by the attackers or that come out of the rhetoric of those who think the attackers hate us for our freedom, were in fact achieved. Not directly as a result of the 9/11 attacks, but rather because of our response to them.

Showing the World the "True" USA

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, there was an outpouring of goodwill worldwide towards the USA. Yes, it was not universal; there were places where people were dancing in the streets celebrating that the USA had been attacked. And, doubtless, there was some snark from our allies in the form of "now you have on your soil what we've been dealing with all along". But, the world recognized this as one of the most major terrorist attacks, and recognized it as an attack on the modern civilized world, not just on the USA.

With a different presidential administration, I suspect that this goodwill could have been fostered, and used to help bring about changes in the world that made it a better place. Instead, what did we do? We completely squandered it. A few years later, it became embarrassing to travel abroad as an American. The USA became not known as the world leader of the great democracies who suffered a terrible attack, but rather as the jingoistic unilateral bully that was going to do whatever the hell it wanted militarily, regardless of what its allies thought. The 9/11 attacks were used as a pretext for an invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with them.

The outpouring of the "good" form of patriotism that happened right after 9/11 very quickly morphed into the ugly form of patriotism. The kind of patriotism that asserts you're completely for the USA and what it's doing, or you're effective aiding and abetting the enemy. The kind of ugly patriotism that makes people in other countries see Americans not as a proud people, but as an arrogant and ignorant people. Americans have always suffered this to some extent; and, to some extent, it's earned. But it's become much worse in the years since 9/11, as a direct result of our nasty reaction to 9/11. I'm talking about the invasion of Iraq, our open defense of torture, the Guantanamo Bay prisons, our doctrine of unilateral military adventurism and ignoring the protests of the other great world democracies... but also just the general behavior and rhetoric of so many individual Americans.

Losing our freedoms

On the evening of 9/11, George W. Bush gave a rather nice speech that was broadcast worldwide on television. Notably, he didn't refer to the terrorist acts as "cowardly"; that came later. Rather, they were "evil and despicable", much more apt descriptions. Most inspirationally, he said:

These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation.

Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.

America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.

In an administration that was filled with a lot of misdirection, dissembly, and obfuscation of the truth, I believe that this, right here, was W's most egregious untruth. I do not call it a lie, because I think he believed it when he said it. But the years that followed showed that this was completely wrong. American resolve was in fact undermined, and changed from resolve into an ugly sort of aggression. The brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world turned into a bully that disgusted the world. And, freedom in the USA, while still greater than many (if not most) societies that have existed throughout the history of Western civilization, has been seriously curtailed.

Obviously, freedom of speech still exists, or I could not write this blog post. And, indeed, most of us effectively have no fewer freedoms than we had ten years ago. But those freedoms are much less secure now, and there are some who have less effective freedom than they did ten year ago. What am I talking about?

  • Airport "security". The fourth amendment of the Constitution ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,...") has been trampled upon and treated as toilet paper if you're anywhere near an airport. In many airports, you must agree to be photographed effectively naked, or, if you "opt-out", you are subject to official sexual assault (including groping of children that would lead to the kid being immediately taken away by child protective services if the parent were observed doing it). This would be inexcusable even if these measures were effective, but they're not. Indeed, as that Schneier piece points out, if our security is going to be insistent on identifying each and every potential weapon that goes on to an airplane, the only recourse is an escalation of intrusiveness that will completely destroy personal dignity (if there is, indeed, any left now), and/or make flying effectively impossible. (At which point, of course, terrorists will blow up trains, or buses! Indeed, right now, if they're going after air travel, the lines at security are probably the most juicy target.)
  • The PATRIOT act. This was a gigantic piece of legislation that was passed, with the legislators that passed it not having read it, or, in many cases, not even fully realizing what was inside it. Yet, it was passed overwhelmingly, because the politics of fear, and the fear that our country was feeling at the time, meant that they all had to be seen "doing something". Our legislative process was completely undermined. Supposedly, our congressmen talk about, debate, and argue about the laws being passed. The process fails a lot, I admit, but this failure was truly egregious. Measures were passed overwhelming that would have garnered tremendous controversy (both inside and outside Congress) at any other time. The act granted a huge expansion of the discretionary powers of law enforcement. Again, most of us haven't experienced the loss of freedom due to this, but it is always the people on the margins for whom the defense of freedom is most precarious, and most necessary. (If you're not worried about them, remember that the margins can move in over time, after all.) Among many, many other things, the PATRIOT act includes National Security Letters, that allow them to get private information about you from institutions such as libraries... and not only are these not subject to review, but the libraries (or whatever) are not allowed to even admit that they've received this request. This sounds to me like a very key tool of somebody building a police state!
  • Our general response to what is seen to be reasonable in a free society:
    • Many people have gotten in trouble for photographing public buildings. And, the rhetoric is such that that we now think, hey, wait, those people might be planning attacks! We need to be safe!
    • Many of us argued in favor of torture. Never mind that it doesn't work. Never mind that it's evil and we as a society shouldn't want to be doing this. It's effectiveness on the TV series 24 has lead us to think it's patriotic to want to torture those we suspect of being our enemies.
    • Warrantless wiretapping, something that would have been anathema on September 10, 2001, is always being pushed and expanded.
    • Because we're all so afraid of terrorists, we're happily allowing our state to turn into a surveillance state where we can expect that law enforcement is watching us and recording us wherever we go, whatever we do.
    • At the same time, people are getting in trouble for photographing or videotaping the police. Put "the state surveils you" and "you are not allowed to surveil the state to hold it accountable" together, and you've got the technological underpinnings of the state described in Orwell's 1984. Accuse me of hyperbole— I'm using it, after all— but seriously folks: do we want to keep this a free society or not?
    • The current administration, elected on promises of being different from the last one, of trying to undo the expansion of the power of the executive branch, is, in contrast to those promises, quietly pushing forward all of these measures.

9/11 was a tragedy. Many people lost their lives due to the evil and despicable acts of some religious fanatics. But the true horrors of 9/11 are how amazingly successful those attacks were, because of our response. We've handed the terrorists their objectives on a golden platter.

Let's go back to standing firm, to resolve, to freedom not being deterred. If we're to make changes in our way of life, let's not fall in upon ourselves, become ever more jingoistic and ever more afraid, and sacrifice our freedoms in the name of that fear. Instead, let's examine what it is, really, that makes people hate us so much, and ask if there are things we're doing wrong. Let's make changes in how we interact with the rest of the world that build goodwill. In the long run, having more goodwill around the world is going to make us safer than any security walls we build around ourselves. And, by maintaining and upholding freedom and dignity, we might begin to truly honor those who died on 9/11, instead of claiming to honor them while pissing on their graves by allowing fear to turn us into what we're becoming.

Share

6 responses so far

Online Talk, 10AM Pacific Time : SpaceTime Diagrams

(by rknop) Sep 09 2011

As a part of MICA, the Meta-Institute of Computational Astrophysics, I will be giving a public talk tomorrow morning entitled "Understanding Relativity with SpaceTime Diagrams".

Einstein's theory of Relativity completely changed our notions of reality in the early 20th century. Time, it turns out, is not absolute, but rather mixes with space in a particular way that depends on how fast a clock (or other time measuring device) is moving relative to whoever is asking questions about it. Spacetime diagrams are a great tool for understanding Special Relativity. In this talk I'll introduce a few of the startling results of Special Relativity, and show how they can be described using spacetime diagrams. In next week's talk (September 17), we'll use SpaceTime diagrams as a tool to help us describe the geometry near black holes.

The talk will be at the MICA Large Ampitheater in Second Life. Remember that Second Life accounts are free, so register today!

Share

One response so far

In Which I Compare the Slashdot Commentariat to the 17th-Century Catholic Church

(by rknop) Aug 14 2011

I am regularly struck, when giving public outreach talks, or when hearing the topic of Dark Matter discussed amongst the general non-Astronomer public, at the separation between acceptance of Dark Matter between astronomers and the general (informed) public. (The general public at large probably doesn't have enough of a clue about Dark Matter even to have a wrong opinion, alas!) Most astronomers know the evidence, and accept that non-baryonic dark matter is a real component of our Universe. Many in the public, however, seem to view Dark Matter as a horrible kludge, an ex-rectum fudge factor that astronomers have invoked in order to explain discrepancies between observation and theory. Indeed, topics related to this will be the subject of my upcoming August 16 365 Days of Astronomy podcast.

For a popular level discourse on the evidence for dark matter, I shall point you to two sources:

And now I can get to the snarky bits of this post. Yesterday, on Slashdot there showed up a post entitled CERN Physicists Says Dark Matter May Be An Illusion. In the paper indirectly referenced by the Slashdot article, a theoretical physicists explores the idea of negative gravitationally charged antimatter and the polarization of the vacuum as an explanation for the rotation speeds of galaxies (the mainstream explanation for which is, yes, Dark Matter).

What's interesting is the tone of the Slashdot comments. Some are informative, and ask exactly what I ask: what about the Bullet Cluster? However, a fair number of the comments show the same tenor as these excerpts:

I hope so. Dark matter is the ugliest kludge to the standard model ever.

Agreed. I have always had a hard time stomaching the theory that dark matter and dark energy exist. It seems far too much like aether, i.e. something made up to fill a gap in knowledge without much evidence backing it up.

Yay for phlogiston [wikipedia.org] and aether [wikipedia.org]. Dark matter might end up on the list of ideas that physcists turned to in order to explain things that had other explanations. La plus ca change

Dark matter, too, has never been observed, and possesses properties of matter previous unseen or indeed thought impossible, and exists solely to bridge a gap between our model of how things should behave, and how things actually behave. This does not bode well for it.

There is a strong general sense among a large (majority? hard to tell) subset of the Slashdot commentariat that astronomers are all on the wrong track and propping up a failing theory, and that dark matter is a kludge that just can't be right.

The thing is, they're wrong. They just know that Dark Matter can't be real, because they are not comfortable with the idea that a substantial fraction of the Universe is made up with stuff that we can't see, that doesn't even interact with light. Much as... the 17th century Catholic church just knew that Galileo (and others) were wrong about Heliocentrism, because it's obvious to everyday observation that the Earth is still and the Sun is going around it. (Also, the Bible says so.) And, just as the leaders of the Catholic church completely discounted (and indeed refused to look at) Galileo's observation of Jupiter's moons orbiting Jupiter (and, crucially, not the Earth), armchair pundits completely ignore (probably mostly through ignorance!) the wide range of evidence for Dark Matter that goes beyond the "accounting error" represented by the motion of stars in galaxies, and galaxies in galaxy clusters. (Those motions are indeed one part of the evidence for Dark Matter, and historically formed the first evidence for it, but they're far from all of the evidence nowadays.) They cling to notions of how science ought to work, and how the Universe ought to be made up in a familiar way that seems natural to us humans, and use this to assert that an entire field full of scientists must all be on the wrong track for having a different model.

Specifically with regard to comparisons to the luminiferous aether, I would point you to my June 2010 podcast: "Dark Matter: Not Like the Luminiferous Ether". (And, yes, I'm conscious that I've spelled aether two different ways in this paragraph!)

Indeed, I would say that the comparison between denial of Dark Matter and denial of Heliocentrism goes deeper than that. The Copernican Principle is that the Sun, not the Earth, is at the center of... well, today we would say the Solar System, but in Copernicus' day that was also what was thought to be the whole Universe (the stars not at the time being understood to be things like the Sun). An extension of this is the Cosmological Principle, which stated succinctly says "you are nowhere special". We're not at a special center of the Universe, we're just at a typical random place in the Universe pretty much like any other. Observations (of galaxy distributions, of the Cosmic Microwave Background, and so forth) bear up this assumption or postulate, which is why we call it a principle. Think about it in broader terms, though. We are made up of "baryonic matter", which is Physicist for "stuff made of protons, neutrons, and electrons". In light of the Cosmological Principle, however, why should we expect that most of the Universe is made up of the same general kind of stuff as we are? In the face of evidence otherwise, many still insist that most of the Universe must be made up of baryonic stuff that interacts with other baryons and our familiar photons. Is this not just as much hubris as insisting that the Earth, where we live, must be the center about which all the other Solar System bodies orbit?

Share

23 responses so far

SpotOn3D a bigger menace to virtual worlds than we realized

(by rknop) Aug 10 2011

Not much of a surprise, given that their CEO is a patent attorney, but SpotOn3D is actively pissing all over the virtual world space, trying to claim proprietary rights on lots of ideas for doing things in virtual worlds. As I mentioned in a previous post, software patents are bullshit, and are also a threat. They stifle innovation, because ideas— often broad ideas that are obvious extensions of what already exists— are given government monopolies. Even if the patent would be overturned in court, the mere threat of patent litigation is enough to deter small companies or individuals, who can't afford to defend themselves, from doing things. At best, they pay protection money to the patent bully defending it; at worst, competitors can be stopped from competing (as Apple is often trying to do with Android-based phones).

It turns out that SpotOn3D has applied for five patents already, and intends to apply for many more.

That makes SpotOn3D at the moment one of the greatest threats to the future development of an interoperable future metaverse. Yes, Tessa Kinny-Johnson may get all teary about being attacked and think that she's not being appreciated for the development that her company is doing, but make no mistake. Software patents, in a business and software ecosystem dominated by Linden Lab (hardly a corporate behemoth themselves), are a greater danger than they are anywhere else— and they get in the way of innovation everywhere. As such, it doesn't matter how emotional she gets, she needs to understand that her company is being actively destructive to the development of virtual worlds. More importantly, the community as a whole needs to understand that SpotOn3D is destructive, and Kinny-Johnson and others there need to realize the community understands that.

If they're going to be patent trolls, if they're effectively going to try to play the roll of SCO to Linux (who, thankfully, didn't do much, but then again Linux was already a juggernaut when they showed up), then we're going to have to call them out in the open as the bad actors that they are. We cannot allow them to hide behind claims of innovation and development, when what they're really doing is trying to acquire solitary rights of refusal and taxation on innovation and development in the virtual world domain.

I call on all users to boycott SpotOn3D. Don't give that grid an audience so that it's worth it for people to buy regions there. I call on all people with regions to move their regions to other grids; look for a grid that provides service, or a grid that's not supporting a company that's trying to grab rights of refusal for future virtual world development. And, I call on the developers and other non-lawyer employees of SpotOn3D to go get a job with an ethical company. The OpenSim community cannot afford to allow the patent minefield to grow. That, however, is what SpotOn3D is actively doing. The degree to which they are a menace cannot be over-emphasized. They need to be rejected by the community. We need them to go out of business as soon as possible before they can apply for more patents that we'll be forced to deal with for the next two decades. What's more, other companies who might be considering the same sort of "build our investment portfolio" kind of behavior must see that our community will not tolerate this behavior from companies. SpotOn3D must be seen to suffer, and soon, so that other virtual world companies will hesitate before joining the patent fracas.

Share

31 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »

Bad Behavior has blocked 45 access attempts in the last 7 days.