Monday, May 29, 2017

Anderson Windows Bad Screen Design

All of our new Anderson casement windows have two clips to hold the screen. The screens bow, so there is more than a 0.5" gap at the top and bottom, letting in the bugs.  The video above shows a video of the gap as I push on the screen.  The model numbers can be found on the stickers as shown below. 

Saturday, March 4, 2017

A Short Note On How We Know About Anthropomorphic Climate Change

The purpose of this post is to provide a simple explanation for how we know with a high degree of confidence that climate change is due to humans.

The plot shows the land-ocean temperatures for the years that saw a huge increase of the quantity of carbon that humanity has added to the atmosphere.  The points are yearly values and the red curve a five-year average, which smooths out the fluctuations to highlight the general trend (source: NASA with data at  The shaded area shows the total carbon emission each year from human activities (source: Department of Energy with data at

I won't go into details of how heating of the oceans and air affect climate because this phenomenon is well known and not a topic of debate.  The point of contention is proof that humans are responsible.  The plot shows excellent correlation between the mass of greenhouse gasses that are emitted by human activities and the temperature.  But correlation is not proof of causation, so how do we know that we are to blame?

The science is too complex to argue in a public forum.  The reason for the high degree of certainty is based on the many different streams of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.  It's like all compasses pointing to magnetic north; those that don't are found to be broken and point randomly, refuting the assertion that the vast number of north-pointing compasses must be wrong.

This convergence of many independent lines of evidence in support of a conclusion is called consilience, a topic that is well explained by Michael Shermer in Scientific American, and can be found at  This is a must read for all non-scientists who want to understand how science works and why it is so reliable.

Some people may blame scientists, who base professional judgements on extensive knowledge and consilience, of being arrogant.  A proclamation of a "truth" that goes against the accumulated evidence of a scientific field is true arrogance.  Basing policy that goes against consilience is sheer folly and muzzling the fruits of consilience is the ultimate crime.

It would be a waste of my time to fully analyze the literature on my own.  I trust the scientists working in the field who build high-tech apparatuses, take data over decades, and meticulously analyze it.  After all, the consilience they have reached is the result of extensive professional debate.  It is arrogant for citizens without expertise in a field to deny anthropomorphic climate change based on the fact that Moscow Idaho has been exceptionally cold this winter.  Policy should be based on the best evidence that science has to offer, and the scientists -- as a group -- with expertise in areas related to climate science are the ones who should be trusted by the public.


Global warming is a scientifically imprecise term because it focuses on the temperature increase, which is a consequence of extra trapped energy.  When light from the sun is absorbed by air, the earth's surface, and oceans, that energy is converted to heat.  Heat is simply the flow of energy in the form of motions of atoms and molecules.  Some of the energy of the warm earth is radiated through infrared light, but greenhouse gasses absorb that light, preventing it from escaping the earth's atmosphere, thus  converting it to heat.  Greenhouse gasses pass sunlight but block the infrared light that is needed for cooling, leading to a buildup of heat and thus an increase of the temperature.

The temperature increase due to a unit of heat energy depends on the mass of the object.  Since the oceans are so much more massive than the earth's atmosphere, the average ocean temperature will increase less than the atmosphere for a given amount of heating.  Since the energy imbalance driven by greenhouse gases is the key process at work, ocean and atmosphere temperatures must be combined if the effects of greenhouse gasses are to be accurately assessed.  That is why the land-ocean temperature composite is a good index of global heating.

Monday, February 20, 2017

The Rise of a Dictator

Writing puts ideas into a visual form, aiding the writer in clarifying his or her thoughts.  The written word is also an efficient means for transmitting information that is well suited to contemplation.  In contrast, Trump tweets and arouses his followers by yanking at their emotional strings, blinding them to reason.  It matters little to them that much of what Trump says is utter nonsense that often contradicts his own recorded words from the past.  There is no need to consult the "crooked" media.  One can easily verify Trump's duplicitousness through his Twitter feed or recordings of his own words that can be found across the internet.

Trump spews many lies. Each one demands a rebuttal that is grounded in fact and an analysis that through logic illustrates the dangerous consequences of his intended actions.  Unfortunately, the sheer volume of lies and inaccuracies makes it impossible to have a true discourse that leads to effective policies.

Each day, I intend to write about his most crazy utterance, but there are just too many of them to keep up.  So instead, I decided to let off some steam by writing this post.

I feel that it is in the best interest of us all to preserve our democracy -- a precious but fragile gift.  Democracy allowed Trump to win, and our citizenry deserves a chance to vote Trump out of office in four years if his actions fail to enrich our society.

In closing, below I have produced a list of techniques needed to become a dictator.  How many of these has Trump used and how far down the list will he get?

  • 1. Use fear to convince your population to give up its freedom for security
  • 2. Identify a scapegoat group that you can blame for society's ills
  • 3. Discredit the press to limit information, maximize disinformation, and prevent scrutiny of your actions.
  • 4. Weaken the judiciary so that you can be above the law
  • 5. Imprison the opposition
  • 6. Surround yourself with miliary leaders that are loyal to you
  • 7. Empower the police to control the population rather than protect it
  • 8. When things go wrong, blame others and lie
  • 9. Use your power to enrich yourself

Friday, January 20, 2017

Inner and Outer Space

I'll be around another 40 years if my lifespan is as long as my father’s and eleven years if I match my mother's time on this earth.  It gets me thinking about what I want to do with the rest of my life. My frustration is that time is too short to pursue all of my ideas for research projects and that I will never understand all the paradoxes that have been gnawing at me over the years.

Contrary to the common misconception that physics is cold and impersonal, I have found it to be the ideal tool for answering the deepest questions.  Some may yearn for the meaning of life, but an understanding of reality as physics delivers makes it clear that this is a nonsensical question.  It’s like asking if a table feels cold, and seeking an answer through surveys of opinions on the topic or engaging in philosophical debates about the possibility of a soul entering the table from its woodlands progenitor.  An understanding of what constitutes life makes irrational the notion that a hunk of wood has the capacity for feeling.  The fact that the complexities of life are not fully understood is irrelevant.  We know enough to eliminate the absurd.

I would like to spend my remaining days, months, years or decades gaining a deeper understanding of my trade, which gives me the tools to answer the grandest questions.  For starters, there are many things that I’ve learned that don’t sit well.  For example, physicists use sleight of hand to sweep away ignorance of details.  Statistical Mechanics is a field that is based on such broad strokes of chicanery.  However, it makes exquisitely accurate predictions that are consistent with reality, so must be an excellent approximation, but it can’t be totally correct.  My objection is that it glosses over the most interesting phenomena, such as quantum entanglement.

Why is entanglement so interesting? If the universe operates by the rules of quantum mechanics, and all indications are that it does, then we are all interconnected and always will be.  There is no escape from this bondage, even if trying to escape by hopping on a ship and taking it through a wormhole to the far reaches of the universe.  It is likely that the universe as a whole is in a state of entanglement and Statistical Mechanics governs how our conscious minds perceive it from within.  I so much would like to understand that fuzzy transition from the quantum realm to human perception.

I’ve been hampered by a dampening of enthusiasm, which drains the precious energy that is needed to single-mindedly attack difficult problems. Since my father’s passing just before Christmas in 2014, I’ve been in a general state of malaise that makes it difficult to concentrate and make progress.  In part, this melancholy is due to his absence, but much of it stems from the realization that the currents of time have caught up with me and I am now the patriarch – the last one of my line, as he was for so many years.  I hope that taking the torch from him does not oblige me to inherit the pessimism that took hold of him later in life.

These realizations have motivated me to take stock of my life, and to anticipate every possible regret in the making; should I have written that book, more intensely pursued an idea for a research project, spent less time writing proposals and more time actually thinking; or, concentrating more on family?  There is still time to correct shortcomings before hindsight’s souring influence.  Sadly, every time I say to myself “screw it,” intending to drop unproductive activities such administrative burdens, a pang of guilt pushes me to write the next proposal – bringing me to an eternal seesawing between regret and guilt.

An antidote for my malaise has been a book-writing project with my wife that brings unbridled joy and fulfillment.  Like a course of antibiotics, writing must be regular to be a long-term cure.  A published book is not the goal; we rather enjoy the process.  We have outlined several milestones in our lives, some from our childhood, and others after we came together. Then we write about each from our own perspectives, going back in time to observe the threads of our intertwining lives from a fresh perspective.

After a nightly session, we return from our parallel universes to share our stories.  Pat reads each of our pieces in her dramatic story-telling style, arousing our memories of the past and kindling an appreciation of its connection to the present.  The earliest memories of family gives us a glimpse of the important figures in our lives and what they mean to us long after significant events have passed and loved ones are gone.  The holes that their absences have created are filled with their love and priorities, which we honor by carrying them forward in our own ways – then passing the baton to the next generation by example and through our writings.

One story line chronicles a serious illness that hospitalized each of us in early grade school, setting chronological markers that give insights about our character and the deep connection with family they forged when confronted with the frailty of our lives.  As we saunter to the more recent past, our timelines move together haphazardly. Our writings eventually merge, touching the same events from vastly differing perspectives that brings a poignancy to our memories that would otherwise have been forgotten.

First contact came on a muggy August day when my family shows up on Scott Lane in 1968 across the street from my future wife.  She is greatly disappointed that the new resident is a ten year old boy.  The cooties-infested neighborhood swarmed like locusts on our front lawn, the girls taking perches on our new mimosa tree to re-affirm their claim bestowed upon them by the previous owners.  Coming from Sun Hill, Chester’s tough working-class neighborhood, I thought Wallingford to be a wonderfully strange place where girls grow on trees.  The stories continue beyond that fateful day almost a decade later when we were re-introduced to each other on a commuter train; Pat, to study for a final exam at the Temple University library, and me to take data at my University of Pennsylvania lab.

My life will not be complete unless I use the tools of physics to pursue the universe’s mysteries while nurturing my inner self with shared writing.  The two are inexorably entwined; one will have no meaning without the other. Sadly, neither Pat nor I have written a single word together for many months because of time demands of work and Pat’s barrier to write.  It is especially sad to be deprived of Pat’s writing, which is concise yet rich; embeds subtle irony in the mundane, drops unexpected twists, and expresses her emotions indirectly though prose about her actions.  More important to me, I feel a sadness that memories that are struggling to be released will slip away before she will reveal them to me, a precious loss.

I am committed to strike a better balance in my life, placing our cherished passions first, then prioritizing the rest.  With a growing pile of obligations on my desk, I have taken the first step by writing this therapeutic piece to convince myself to get back on track and to reaffirm my support to Pat so that she will once again fight to overcome her writer’s block, which deprives us all.  Write on!

Friday, November 4, 2016

I always feel Stupid and Confused

I often get emails asking me about physicist questions.  Sometimes I can't resist answering, especially if it's a simple problem on a fundamental principle.  Try answering the question without looking at my solution, and then check my work to see if I got it right.


Hello Professor -

My name is **** and I’m a WSU alum.  My daughter is taking honors science and we are a bit stumped on a question and I was wondering if you could help me.   

A 5 kg ball rolls at 4m/s and hits a fire hydrant.  The ball bounces off at 2 m/s. 

Which object has the greatest momentum.  The ball, hydrant, or is it the same? 

Ball - I chose ball because of the definition of momentum.  The fire hydrant is not moving – the ball is.    And the question is not about force and gives no other information about the hydrant.

If you have a second I’d love to know if I’m correct, or if there is a different answer and explain it to me. 


Hi ****,

I'm assuming that the question is asking for the momentum of the two objects just after the collision.  This problem is testing the concept of momentum conservation.  Momentum conservation ALWAYS holds even when mechanical energy is not conserved.  This is the principle to understand and apply.

Here is how I would solve the problem.  The initial moment of the ball is + 20 kg m/s and it's momentum just after the collision is - 10 kg m/s (assuming it bounced backwards).  Thus, the change of momentum is - 30 kg m/s.  But since momentum must be conserved, and it was initially 20 kg m/s, the ball must have imparted 30 kg m/s to the hydrant.  Now, momentum is conserved: 20 kg m/s (ball before collision) =  30 kg m/s (hydrant) - 10 kg m/s (ball after collision).  It seems strange because you can't see the hydrant moving but that is because it has so much mass.  So even though its velocity is near zero, the mass is so huge that the momentum is substantial.

The reason that I stipulate "just after the collision" is because the hydrant is attached to the earth, so while it might initially start to move one way, it will end up vibrating back and forth.  Probably more detail than you wanted to here, but just in case you were curious.  Another brain teaser: if the hydrant is oscillating after the collision, the momentum is oscillating too, so momentum seems not to be conserved.  The answer is that the hydrant is attached to the earth, so the earth and the hydrant will move in such a way that momentum is conserved.  It always needs to be conserved.

Don't let your daughter feel frustrated.  Applying physics concepts to problems is very difficult.  You only learn after making lots of mistakes, so have her learn from them.  When teaching any physics class, I give lots of problems of this sort, and some students get angry, accusing me of trying to trick them.  In attempting to do problems and then seeing the right way after struggling somehow results in it sinking in in a way that cannot be replicated by just giving the learner answers.

I don't want to undermine the teacher, who is probably giving the class a bunch of problems of this kind to train them to think, so I don't feel comfortable answering such questions in the future, because the struggle is an important part of learning and the teacher is, I hope, directing the struggles in a positive way.  Your daughter should attack problems by arguing with classmates, you, or whoever is up for a good fight.  My colleagues and I continue to do this even now as we learn new things.  Being able to thrive on being constantly confused in the quest to understand is the ticket for success.

I wish your daughter the best in her studies and tell her from a guy who is constantly confused and feeling stupid, this is the way it should be.  And don't give up!

(Pardon the typos, since I didn't have time to proof my email.)


Mark G. Kuzyk
Regents Professor of Physics
Meyer Distinguished Professor of Sciences
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-2814

Phone: 509-335-4672
Fax: 509-335-7816

Web Page:

Monday, October 31, 2016

Letter to Trump

Dear Mr. Trump,

How can you call Hillary Clinton a liar when according to Politifact you lie over 70% of the time and she lies less than 30% of the time?   Don’t blame this inconvenient fact on the “liberal” media.  The world is not divided into only liberals and conservatives who buy the party line.  Unlike you, the geeks at fact-checking organizations are interested in the truth.

How can we not believe your female accusers when their charges portray the same man that you brag about being?  The respectable people that your victims confided in witnessed the anguish you caused, bolstering the likely veracity of their claims.  The fact that some other men behave deplorably does not absolve you.

Why do you call yourself a successful businessperson when you lost almost a billion dollars in a boom economy by making several unwise investments?  Through self-promotion, you gained celebrity status and used it lure investors into bad deals where you won and everyone else lost.  You routinely default on your financial obligations to small businesses and litigate against people that have offended you.  Ethical business people make deals that benefit all parties.  Will you be able as president to suppress your ego and represent the best interest of the United States?

How can you be trusted to make complex decisions when you do not solicit input from experts?  Solutions to modern-day problems require an informed leader who carefully weighs input from knowledgeable sources.  You treat your opinions as fact even when they contradict the evidence.  You state that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese government.  Nonsense.  Even a well-seasoned PhD physicist such as myself is unqualified to judge science outside my field without input from the experts.  My conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is happening draws on my knowledge of science and the consilience of evidence in the climate science literature.  Do you plan to continue to spew uninformed opinions that go against the evidence?  Doing so as the most powerful world leader could jeopardize the existence of humanity.

How could you not have known that Russia had invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea?  When informed that Russia had already done so, you stated that it was your understanding that the people of Crimea rather be with Russia.  How would you react if Mexico annexed southern California because people there would rather be with Mexico?  Those with aspirations of being a world leader should be keenly aware of current events. 
Why do you bash the media?  The founding fathers so highly valued the need for a free and independent press that they elevated this principle to prominence by including it in the first amendment.  The media is an essential part of our democracy.  It informs our citizens and keeps politicians honest.  The media, which you so despise, has given you $3 billion dollars of free coverage, so do not complain when the facts investigators uncover are inconvenient.  Punishing the media would be an affront to the core principles of our democracy.

How can the elections be rigged?  A recent study showed only 30 cases of voter fraud out of a billion ballots cast.  You claimed, “People that have died 10 years ago are still voting,” and cited a report that found 1.8 million deceased people remain on voter registration rolls.  The fact that it takes time to remove people from the voting rolls does not mean that others are voting in their places.  In fact, studies show that such cases are extremely rare.  You also claim that “illegal immigrants are voting,” citing research from Old Dominion University.  The Harvard professor who manages the database says that this study misuses the data and that in fact very few undocumented residents are voting.  If such election fraud really existed, don’t you think that the offended party would be investigating?

How can we discount your behavior as indicative of an individual who is adept at self-promotion but shows contempt for the facts, takes pleasure in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, refuses to accept criticism, acts impulsively, and lacks the nuanced thinking needed to make rational decisions?  Even if your ideology coincided with mine, a Trump presidency would terrify me.  Can you convince us that you have the temperament and wisdom to lead this country?  Your actions provide the strongest evidence that you do not.  Though you repeat how great things will be if elected, you have not outlined a plan to get us there, nor do you appear to have any new inspirational ideas.  Instead, you offer scapegoats and platitudes.

In my opinion, there is no evidence that you are fit to lead our nation.  Your inability to reason logically and your refusal to heed exert advice that contradicts your gut will be disastrous for our democracy and civilization.  However, if the people elect you, I will go along with the results and work towards proving me wrong in these assertions.

Mark G. Kuzyk

Saturday, September 24, 2016

A Journal Reviewer who gets the point

Even as a senior professor, I still cringe at negative reviews of my work.  It's nice to occasionally get a good one, as I did for a recent paper.  Below is the review:

Review of “A path to ultralarge nonlinear‐optical susceptibilities” by Mark G. Kuzyk

This paper is essentially a quantitative ‘stream of consciousness’ of its author as he ruminates about the origins of the nonlinear polarization in molecular‐scale objects.  Not every author could get away with this type of discourse, but this author is the pioneer of explorations of the fundamental limits of nonlinear optical phenomena and also the founder of the fundamental understanding of scaling phenomena in nonlinear optical molecules.  Those two achievements enable the author to precisely reveal the essential elements of what constitutes a good nonlinear optical structure in this most original of works.

The present paper brings together the two concepts of limits and scaling to attempt to understand how to build a quantum unit (a molecule, in the author’s nomenclature) whose absolute nonlinearity gets large with size when its intrinsic nonlinearity is constant with molecule size.  Many of the scaling concepts are familiar to readers of his papers, but this paper appears to be the first to step back and take a close look at the origin of nonlinearities as a function of the number of participating electrons.  The author carefully examines the quantum to classical transition and shows that the ideal system is made of microscopic units whose size falls just below the classical limit, provided they are properly arranged in the bulk form.  The author examines scaling in 1D and 3D, showing that the existence of transverse modes in 3D essentially removes electrons from participating in the nonlinear response, whereas in 1D, all electrons are longitudinal and can participate, provided they aren't otherwise tied up keeping the molecule bound together or living in shells close to the nucleus.  The emphasis on ‘participating’ electrons isn't new, but their use in scaling arguments appears to be original.

The author emphasizes the need to optimize the so‐called figure of merit (FOM) of a material, a macroscopic quantity related to the physics of a device or phenomena exploited in a device.  Recent work by Mossman et al. has shown how this works using resonant enhancement in a nonlinear material.  The fact that the present paper raises the issue of FOM optimization indicates an attempt by the author to shift the collective discussion of how to make better molecules from a focus on better nonlinearities to a focus on better materials.  The reviewer believes this paper may be referenced in future years as a turning point for the field of nonlinear optics materials research, much as the author’s 2000 Phys. Rev. Letter on the fundamental limits led to discoveries of the origins of large intrinsic nonlinearities, delineation of the required spectral properties of good molecules, and the invention of new materials.

In brief, it is an excellent, original piece of work and should be published.

My original pleasure induced by these strokes to my ego dissipated quickly.  I detest authority and would not want to become one.  Everyone should make judgments based on the strength of the evidence, not on the source.  I don't want to be given a free pass, nor do I want to impose my will on others.

Accepting the title of "authority" admits to stagnation.  I would rather be exploring new territories, filled with confusion but fueled by a drive to seek an understanding of the mysterious novelties that are just out of reach.  Answers always lead to more questions, like a series of stepping stones that stretch out in all directions with new branches emanating from each one.  The stepping stones in the distance are an alluring draw from the familiar ones that I have visited.  I yearn for them.

My many years as an academic have brought me great fulfillment in making discoveries and learning new things in the companionship of students and colleagues.  It keeps me young.  On the flip side, I am burdened by responsibilities that are neither intellectually stimulating, nor produce any tangible benefits to my constituents.  I stand at a crossroads where I am bursting with ideas that are squelched by inane responsibilities.  Should I abrogate my duties and dive into my research, whose benefits I know will surpass my selfish desire to learn, or should I continue to be a loyal soldier, obeying orders that restrain intellectual creativity?  It is a decision that I alone need to make, and nobody can lesson this burden.  The sense of responsibility yanks me away from my passions.

I dream of becoming a recluse for a summer or a semester, surrounded by my books and doing calculations on  huge sheets of paper, without interruption.  I would have to ignore funding agency reporting requirements that ask the same questions in 14 different ways, as if to excise every bit of creative energy.  I would have to ignore annual reviews that force me to waste a day filling in boxes in a form that neither makes the provided information clearer or more assessable.  I would have to ignore calls for proposals, which require researchers to come up with ideas that are not so novel as to not be appreciated, but beyond trivial so that reviewers can be impressed.  I would have to ignore nagging emails that incessantly interrupt my train of thought. Ignoring these activities would surely result in a loss of funding, something that the university expects, but that I wouldn't need.  Is it ethical to use the security of my tenure to ignore expectations that come from above even though I believe the university would potentially benefit more in the long run?

The guilt strings pull at my gut as I spend time writing this post, even though I'm at the keyboard at 9:00pm on a Saturday night -- a time that should be my own. Airing out these frustrations, I hope, will be an exercise that will help me sleep, which has not come easily these days. The obligations that are pulling me in multiple directions prevent me from making any meaningful progress in my most important activities, and I lay in bed in panic that I will miss important deadline.

The check list on my desk has many items that need attention.  I just finished grading and need to prepare for lectures, make up homework problems, and solve them -- a process that I find deeply fulfilling.  Next I need to reply to the reviewers' comments and revise my manuscript.  Rereading my manuscript, which is necessary when making revisions, is like visiting with old friends and rehashing the past, a pleasant pastime where ideas are batted around and reformed.  Since my colleagues were kind enough to review my manuscripts, I am ethically bound to act as a reviewer when asked.  Obligations of this sort are made many times each day, so I must accept the fact that I will never be able to withdraw fully.

Now it's time to get back to responding to the reviewers and revising my paper.  The details in the reviews suggest that both reviewers took the time to critically read manuscript and understood the nuances of my paper. For this I am grateful and excuse them for implying that I am an authority.  Since it's almost 10:00pm, it's time for me to complete this post.  No time to proof it.  No apologies.