Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

How a Touch Screen Work



Touch screens have totally changed the way we use mobile phones. But how does wiping your finger on a glass screen make things happen inside your phone?


Touch screens on phones and tablets really have the X factor. Being able to text, phone or film something just by swiping your finger on glass almost makes up for all those other failed sci-fi promises of the 60s.
But considering how futuristic touch screens seem, they rely on a bit of physics that's almost as old as Newton — capacitance — and the fact that your finger is three parts salty water.
If you stick your finger on a regular piece of glass, the most you can hope for is a smudge.
But if there's an electric field on the other side of the glass, some serious rearranging of electric charges goes on in the glass, in your finger and in the field itself.
And if there are dozens of small electric fields forming and disappearing in a grid formation on the other side of your glass screen, your phone can not only tell when a finger is touching it, it can pinpoint exactly where on the screen that finger is. Here's how.

Journey to the center of the smartphone:

The touch detection part of a smartphone is in the top part of the phone, above the LCD screen and the battery and circuits.
It's made up of two sheets of glass and a bunch of wires that are so skinny they're see-through. The top sheet of glass is the one you touch — it's mostly for protection and to keep your finger away from the business end of things, which happen on the layer of glass below. This second layer has got the skinny wires running over both sides: across it on one side, and up and down on the other. Together they make up a grid pattern.
Touchy fieldy things
The wires on one side of the glass are hooked up to the battery's positive terminal, and the ones on the other side are hooked up to the negative terminal. But there's only ever one pair of wires — one above and one below the glass — switched on at any one time. The switching happens really quickly, so every possible pair of wires gets charged up heaps of times in the same order every second.
In every one of these pairs of wires, the one that's hooked up to the battery's positive terminal gets electrons sucked out of it, and the negative terminal pumps electrons into the other wire. So you always have one wire (the one hooked up to the negative terminal) being more negative than the other. That difference in charge causes an electric field between the two wires, and it's strongest where the wires are closest — where they cross over.
These electric fields are really small, but they still affect nearby charges — like the electrons in the layer of glass.
Glass is an insulator — its electrons are held tightly by its atoms, so they're not free to flow as an electric current. But the electric field between the wires pulls the electrons a little bit towards the positive wire. No current flows, but pulling all those electrons closer repels electrons in the positive wire, and attracts more electrons from the battery to the negative wire. So the positive wire gets a bit more positive (fewer electrons) and the negative wire more negative than it would be without the help of the glass. And that means the electric field gets stronger.
Capacitance in touchscreens
Devices that can store charge in conductors separated by an insulator like this are called capacitors. Man-made capacitors first appeared in the 18th century, but nature had the jump on us by a few billion years. Lightning is made by thunderclouds and the ground acting like a giant capacitor, and your cells control what goes in and out of them by keeping an electric field across their insulating membrane.
If a dud conductor like glass can increase the electric field at the intersection of the wires, you can imagine what a bag of salty water like your finger can do to it. Better still, your finger doesn't have to be between the wires — the electric field around intersecting wires pokes up and out of the top layer of glass, right out of your phone. So when you touch your screen you're putting your finger right into an electric field.
The blood and cells in your finger are full of water with heaps of charged atoms dissolved in it — positive ions like sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+), and negative ions like chloride (Cl-). When your finger enters an electric field, the field gets to work organising those charges — sucking negative ions towards the positive wires and pushing positive ions away. And with all that extra charge getting organised in your finger, that particular electric field gets stronger so it can suck more charge from the battery to balance things out.
The turbo-charge your finger gives to the nearest electric field doesn't go unnoticed by the phone. The black border around all touch screens covers up a bunch of sensors that constantly measure how much charge is stored at the intersection of every pair of crossed wires. Once the power to a pair of wires is cut, the electric field disappears, so there's nothing to hold the built-up electrons in place. They leak out from the negative wire into another circuit, causing a small current to flow in it. The hidden sensors measure how long the current flows for — the more charge stored in the grid lines, the longer it takes to leak out, the longer the current lasts.
Stick a finger on your phone and the electric field at the nearest intersecting wires grows, so more charge is stored there. Depower the wires and the sensor notices that while all the other wires are producing the standard amount of current, one pair — the wires that intersect near your finger — are high scorers. It's a tactic straight out of the Battleship playbook, and it works a treat.

It's a stylus ... it's a finger ... it's a banana!:

For all its smarts, your phone isn't detecting a finger — it just knows that something that's about the same conductivity as a finger is touching it. Metals will shoot the electric field through the roof, and cause an outflow current that's way too long. Non-conductors, like gloves, won't have nearly enough effect. But anything that's got about a finger's worth of free-moving charge — like a humble banana — will do the trick. Capacitance has a very democratic sense of touch.

Thank You For Reading
For More

Stay With Us: Amad Ahmad 

The Dark Side Of The Internet



Carl Gustav Jung suggested that everything we feel about (or see in) another person is comprised of about 75% of our own “stuff” – our infamous shadow (i.e., the unconscious aspects of ourselves) – which we project, in either positive or negative ways, onto others.
In reality, such perceptions really have nothing to do with the other person. A more accurate indicator of an individual’s character and intentions are based on one-on-one interactions with them in real life, from a place of grounded awareness of self and the experiences which accompany that ‘work’.
As you can probably guess, shadow projection is even more amplified within the sheltered realms of the online world in comparison to “real” face-to-face interactions.
All of us can engage in shadow projection at any given moment, without exception. Ask yourself, how many times have you looked at photos of a person and projected qualities (good or bad) onto her/him that are actually completely off-base? How often have you been “attracted to” or “infatuated” with – or “repelled” and “offended” by – a person, based solely on the content of his/her posts or their appearance in pics? How often do we project emotions and “tone” onto other people’s posts that are not really there in the context of the content, but are merely arising out of our own unconscious shadow?
Consider, also, that the mood/frame of mind we are in (when an attempt at communication takes place) can distort the interpretation of that message. For example, a person who is sending an online text or writing a social media post may be smiling whilst doing so, and is offering it to others from a genuinely good heart-space, grounded in positive feelings; but the receiver/reader is on a different vibrational wavelength, and misreads the context of the content, seeing it as full of resentment, or perhaps finds it offensive – the misunderstanding, in such circumstances, is based on assumptions which are grounded in the reader’s own issues and stories.
Sometimes, when I’ve met people in real life with whom I had previously connected via Facebook, I can see how my perception of them (be it positive or negative) was off in parts, and I come to realize how much I had projected qualities onto that person – based completely on Facebook interactions/posts/pics and nothing more – which were not true.
“The shadow is, so to say, the blind spot in your nature. It’s that which you won’t look at about yourself. …You can recognize who it is by simply thinking of the people you don’t like. They correspond to that person whom you might have been — otherwise they wouldn’t mean very much to you. People who excite you either positively or negatively have caught something projected from yourself…I don’t know whether you’ve had similar experiences in your life, but there are people I despise the minute I see them. These people represent those aspects of myself, the existence of which I refuse to admit to myself.” – Joseph Campbell
Facebook (or any social media portal, and the internet in general) is a great tool to connect with people and share information, but understanding shadow projection – and how we really don’t see others as they truly are at times – is worth thinking about.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” – Carl G. Jung
Let’s be clear here: It’s ok to not “like” a person; nor is there any need to become “best friends” with everyone. However, if we get triggered by someone out of proportion (and attack him/her personally or engage in gossiping), then there is usually more at play than just the “other” person’s behavior and attitude. But even if we see “negative” traits in another person that are true (without us becoming heavily triggered in response), can we still come to a place of compassion and empathy about their demeanor? Most of the time, people who act this way are deeply wounded and hurt individuals, compensating for their low self-esteem (due to childhood wounding and other trauma) by lashing out or goading others into reactivity. By the way, I’m talking here about everyday people in everyday interactions, not full blown psychopaths or sociopaths who have no conscience.
“In shadow projecting, we split-off from and try to get rid of a part of ourselves, which is a self-mutilation that is actually an act of violence. In the act of shadow projecting, we disassociate from a part of ourselves and “split” (in two), turning away in revulsion from and severing our association with our darker half, as if we have never met it before in our entire life. We throw our own darkness outside of ourselves and see it as if it exists only in others. We then react violently when we encounter an embodied reflection of our shadow in the outer world, wanting to destroy it, as it reminds us of something dark within ourselves that we’d rather have nothing to do with.
“In the act of shadow projecting, we perpetrate violence (both psychic and/or physical) not only on ourselves, but on the “other” who is the recipient of our shadow projection. This act of external violence is nothing other than our inner process of doing violence to a part of ourselves changing channels and expressing itself in, as and through the external world. In trying to destroy our projected shadow in the outer world, however, we act out, become possessed by and incarnate the very shadow we are trying to destroy…
“Paradoxically, in descending into the depths of the unconscious in order to deal with the prima materia of the shadow, we are simultaneously on the path of ascending to the truly real, as we become introduced to the higher-dimensional light worlds of spirit.” – Paul Levy, Dispelling Wetiko
The following questions can help anyone to become more familiar with their shadow side (from “Knowing Your Shadow” by Robert Augustus Masters):
  • What do I least want others to know about me?
  • What do I tend to have a disproportionate reaction to?
  • What am I offended by?
  • What person keeps triggering or irritating me?
  • What qualities of mine or others do I often feel aversion toward?
  • Which emotions do I consider to be bad or wrong?
  • Which emotions am I the least comfortable expressing?
  • What am I most scared to openly express or share?
I want to make one point clear: There are limitations to the idea of shadow projection and its ramifications, which ties into the oversimplified saying: “when you spot it, you got it”, which is not always true. Sometimes, it is verifiable that we are merely projecting our own internal blind spots onto others, and it is actually our “stuff” which requires self-ownership and healing; but there are other times where it is not our own issues that we are pointing out in another person or situation; that we are, in fact, seeing the other person (or situation) clearly as he/she/it truly is, in good faith. The point is, it’s not a black and white circumstance, and discernment – as always – is paramount.
There’s no denying that shadow projection is a reality in our lives (be it from the receiving end, or engaging in shadow projection ourselves), and understanding and applying basic Jungian psychology is important and very helpful (even though many people also seem to over-simplify or distort the concept of the shadow, due to lack of education regarding its principal characteristics), all of which I’ve experienced in my own life, especially on the internet, where shadow projection is happening a lot. However, it’s not to be used as the only lens through which to see things, because there are limitations to solely employing that kind of psychological analysis, and it can be hijacked by reality-bypassing New Age programs in order to avoid personal responsibility.
Those on the receiving end of this behavior can wind up doing it to others as well, of course – I’ve also judged ‘opponents’ and projected beliefs (and my own shadow) onto them, based on who I think they are. But who am I to judge another person’s experience, let alone someone else’s life? What do we really know of another person’s unique soul lessons, karma, past lives, what they are going through on a daily basis, their struggles, worries, fears, joys and happiness, where they are at now (as opposed to looking through the lens of the past), things they have never expressed to anyone else and are most oftentimes impossible to put into words?
“There is no telling how much I might change in the future. Just as one wouldn’t draw a lasting conclusion about oneself on the basis of a brief experience of indigestion, one needn’t do so on the basis of how one has thought or behaved for vast stretches of time in the past. A creative change of inputs to the system — learning new skills, forming new relationships, adopting new habits of attention — may radically transform one’s life.” – Sam Harris
Sometimes when I get into an argument with a friend and we trigger each other, or when I become annoyed/”reactivated” by others in daily life or on the internet, I think how easier it all would be if we could just inhabit the other person for a minute or two, feeling and thinking exactly as they do, from their perspective. It’s a simple relational practice which helps me to get more in touch with compassion and empathy. Maybe we need to put on these ‘exchange’ glasses more often (if only the technology already existed!), or at the very least, understand the message of this video, and remember it when we find ourselves triggered in everyday life.

Our world is a moment-to-moment classroom of constant lessons. With the rise of social media, I see a lot of bullying, gossiping, and pseudo-psychoanalyzing happening over the internet, alongside an endless shower of ad hominem attacks. In part, the worldwide web represents a reflection of people’s own shadow being triggered and subsequently projected; essentially offering up their own unconscious individualized pain for all to witness.

Think of Monica Lewinsky what you will (especially with regards to the conspiracies which lurked beneath the Clinton incident), but this is great talk about this topic – an issue that is like an elephant in the living room of our post-modern cyber age. It doesn’t always have to be on as grand of a scale as she has experienced it – some people seem to feed off of that kind of behavior, aside from the obvious trolls and “agents” who try to give genuine debaters a hard time.
When there is no rational, compassionate interaction and feedback with each other (but rather, just a retreat into personal attacks and shaming – even if it’s hidden behind humor and sarcasm), then we have already lost that which makes us human – and, in a sense, become what we’re fighting against. The abuse of humor is a topic of its own, regarding when “comedy” and “jokes” are used to attack others with passive aggressiveness, or to cover up our own wounds, due to our unconscious fear of facing the shadow within.
Moreover, looking at it from a hyper-dimensional perspective, there are certain entities which feed off of that drama and fighting, given the”buffet table” of negative emotions, passive/overt aggressiveness, sarcasm and projections that arise during such occasions.
All of this shows the negative side of social media and the internet, when people only communicate by typing words on a screen. It tends to cut us off from our body and emotions. A lot of communication happens non-verbally when we look into each others eyes while sharing physical space together. Body language and energetic impressions oftentimes reveal more than words which are spoken or typed. Words are very limiting as well.
Expressing what I feel and have experienced through language has, at times, been very challenging. This is often due to the fact that many people project different meanings into words, or that we use certain words but are actually trying to convey a different meaning. Personal contact, as in face to face connections, also helps us to be more compassionate towards one another, looking into each other’s eyes. Sometimes, we also just need a hug and to be approached with compassion – even (or especially) when we make mistakes, and seek understanding without being condemned, judged, psychoanalyzed and labeled for our “issues”; especially if we share views that challenge people’s beliefs, which often leads to being prosecuted by strangers behind a computer screen.
I remember working with a professional Gestalt therapist a couple of years ago. She embraced everything that came up for me without any judgment, but with plenty of empathy and compassion – there was no psychoanalysis or application of any psychological labels, no reading quotes to me from psychology books or telling me that I should read this or that, no informing me that I should feel ashamed or bad for my failings and mistakes (which were actually not “mistakes” but unconscious defense mechanisms which served their purpose).
On the contrary, she helped me to feel good about myself – not so that I could rationalize away anything I did or thought in the past, but so I could experience forgiveness for myself and others, and so that I could understand how all of it related to things in my upbringing which I was not fully aware of; mostly childhood wounding, past life trauma and energetic karma. This was all accomplished by guiding me into my body and emotions, a place where the rational analytical mind cannot go. This process and empathetic approach helped to release and heal deep wounds. I was crying many times during these sessions as my psychological and bodily armor was dissolving. Doing this kind of work one-on-one in a private safe container with eye contact is also very important. Something way deeper emerges if we take this kind of “physical” approach, which is impossible to replicate in an online consultation.

Besides imparting to the reader the positive effects of professional embodied psycho-spiritual therapy, the point of this recollection is to reinforce the importance of relating to each other with more compassion, empathy, and forgiveness. You don’t need to be an “expert” in psychology to do this.
“The healing of our present woundedness may lie in recognizing and reclaiming the capacity we have to heal each other, the enormous power in the simplest of human relationships: the strength of a touch, the blessing of forgiveness, the grace of someone else taking you just as you are and finding in you an unsuspected goodness.
“Everyone alive has suffered. It is the wisdom gained from our wounds and from our own experiences of suffering that makes us able to heal. Becoming expert has turned out to be less important than remembering and trusting the wholeness in myself and everyone else. Expertise cures, but wounded people can best be healed by other wounded people. Only other wounded people can understand what is needed, for the healing of suffering is compassion, not expertise.” ~ Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D.


    For more: (click here) 

Psychology Replication Test



Scientific studies about how people act or think can rarely be replicated by outside experts, according to a new study that raises questions about the seriousness of psychology research.
A team of 270 scientists tried reproducing 100 psychology and social science studies that had been published in three top peer-reviewed US journals in 2008.
Just 39 per cent came out with same results as the initial reports, according an international team of researchers known as The Open Science Collaboration.
Their findings are reported in the journal Science .
The topics of studies reviewed ranged from people's social lives and interactions with others to research involving perception, attention and memory.
No medical therapies were called into question as a result of the study, although a separate effort is underway to evaluate cancer biology studies.
"It's important to note that this somewhat disappointing outcome does not speak directly to the validity or the falsity of the theories," says Gilbert Chin, a psychologist and senior editor at the journal Science.
"What it does say is that we should be less confident about many of the original experimental results," says Chin, who was not involved in the study.
Study co-author Brian Nosek from the University of Virginia says the research shows the need for scientists to continually question themselves.
"A scientific claim doesn't become believable because of the status or authority of the person that generated it," says Nosek.
"Credibility of the claim depends in part on the repeatability of its supporting evidence."

Skewed picture

Problems can arise when scientists cherry-pick their data to include only what is deemed "significant," or when study sizes are so small that false negatives or false positives arise.
Nosek says scientists are also under pressure to publish their research regularly and in top journals, and the process can lead to a skewed picture.
"Not everything we do gets published. Novel, positive and tidy results are more likely to survive peer review and this can lead to publication biases that leave out negative results and studies that do not fit the story that we have," he says.
"If this occurs on a broad scale, then the published literature may become more beautiful than the reality."
Some experts said the problem may be even worse that the current study suggests.
John Ioannidis, a biologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, told Science magazine he suspects about 25 per cent of psychology papers would hold up under scrutiny, about the same "as what we see in many biomedical disciplines."

Key caution

One study author who participated in the project as both a reviewer and reviewee was E J Masicampo, assistant professor at Wake Forest College in North Carolina.
He was part of a team that was able to replicate a study that found people who are faced with a confrontational task, like having to play a violent video game, prefer to listen to angry music and think about negative experiences beforehand.
But when outside researchers tried to replicate Masicampo's study -- which hypothesised that a sugary drink can help college students do better at making a complicated decision -- they were not successful.
Masicampo chalks up the differences to geographical factors, stressing that the experiment showed how complicated it can be to do a high-quality replication of a study.
"As an original author whose work was being replicated, I felt like my research was being treated in the best way possible," he says.
There are ways to fix the process so that findings are more likely to hold up under scrutiny, says Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford.
"I see this study as illustrating that we have a problem, one that could be tackled," says Bishop, who was not involved in research.
She urged mandatory registration of research methods beforehand to prevent scientists from picking only the most favourable data for analysis, as well as requiring adequate sample sizes and wider reporting of studies that show null result, or in other words, those that do not support the hypothesis initially put forward.
Scientists could also publish their methods and data in detail so that others could try to replicate their experiments more easily.
These are "simply ways of ensuring that we are doing science as well as we can," says Bishop.
 For more: (click here)

Humans Blue Eyes


What determines the colour of blue eyes? And when, and why, did they evolve?
Blue eyes have been around for at least 7,000 years but we still don't know exactly why they evolved.
Brad Pitt has them, Paul Newman had them — but when it comes to the human population as a whole, blue eyes are not that common.
Experts are not sure when blue eyes first evolved, but there are some interesting theories out there as to why they evolved.

The Vitamin D hypothesis:

In Africa dark eyes, skin and hair are the norm, but blue eyes are more common in southern Europe and even more common in northern Europe, where 70 per cent of people have blue eyes.
This gradient gave rise to the 'vitamin D hypothesis', which is the idea that light coloured skin, hair and eyes co-evolved as humans moved into latitudes where shorter days and summers meant they got less sunlight.
But, there's a problem with this idea, says molecular geneticist Associate Professor Rick Sturm of the University of Queensland.
There is no evidence that light-coloured irises let in more light or help you see better in low light than dark coloured irises.
More importantly, there is evidence that blue eyes evolved before light skin — at least 7000 years ago.
In 2014, Sturm and colleagues reported on ancient DNA from a 7000-year-old tooth belonging to a hunter gatherer dubbed La Brana 1, unearthed from the north-west of Spain.
His genes told them that while this man had dark skin and dark hair, he also had blue eyes.
"This individual had light blue eyes but dark skin and that was the great surprise because we always though these things were co-evolving and we expected light skin to evolve first," says Sturm.
Such archaeological evidence contradicts the idea that the need for sunlight to make vitamin D drove the evolution of blue eyes, along with light-coloured skin.

The 'Paul Newman effect' and other ideas:

So scientists have come up with a range of other hypotheses to explain the evolution of blue eyes, including the idea that they were more sexually attractive than brown eyes — "The Paul Newman effect," quips Sturm.
There's also the idea that blue eyes were advantageous because they perceive stationary objects better than moving things. This could have been an advantage to hunter gatherer women who needed to identify and collect plant foods — indeed blue eyes may even have evolved in women first.
But Sturm has another idea. He says blue eyes have been linked to people coping better with seasonal affective disorder, a major depressive illness that occurs when there are long periods of low light.
Notably, he says, the eye has special neurones in the retina that can detect blue light and use this to help regulate circadian rhythms.
"Perhaps those with blue eyes may have been able to withstand the dark, depressing days of the Neolithic European winters better than those with brown eye colour?"
"They may have been actually active enough to go out hunting while all the rest were sitting in the cave depressed."

What determines eye colour?

Contrary to what we might have once learned in school, it is possible for two blue-eyed parents to have a brown-eyed child, says Sturm.
This is because there are a lot of different factors that determine eye colour.
First there are genes that control the amount of melanin pigment in our irises — that's the part of our anatomy that acts like an aperture on a camera to control the amount of light that gets into the eye.
Around 74 per cent of our eye colour can be put down to a gene called OCA2 on chromosome 15. This gene also contributes to hair and skin colour, but to a much lesser extent.
In 2008, Sturm and colleagues mapped different genes associated with blue and brown eyes.
"What we're seeing with blue eye colour is a lack of melanin in the outer layer of the iris."
A variation in the HERC2 gene, which sits right next to the OCA2 gene controls whether melanin is produced in the outer layer of the iris.
"It's like turning a light switch on or off. If you turn the switch on the eyes will be brown. If you turn it off they become blue," he says.
Then there are genes that control the structure of the iris, such as it thickness and how much collagen it contains.
Eye colour is also influenced by the way light interacts with our irises.
Associate Professor Rick Sturm of the University of Queensland spoke with Anna Salleh

          For more: (click here)