Crystallized Bullshit

My good friend DOTJ, who is probably the only person on the planet who reads this blog, inquires: what - other than nuclear conspiracy and anti-terrorism theory - is filed in the "MISC. INFO." part of my brain. Sorry, girl; no easy answer to that.

Except possibly to state that I have no such file in my head, because I don't believe there's any such thing as "miscellaneous information." Information doesn't exists in categories, we just assign them to categories because doing so is a way to compartmentalize data into blocks that we can deal with, and that we can use to tell ourselves that we are "experts" in certain "subjects." In short, it's a way for us to delude ourselves that we have a clue, never mind the fact that our lives are too short and our minds too narrow for us to have more than the delusion. Once again, we like the pretty pictures the Puppet Masters are showing on the cave wall, and - much like people who devote any time to "reality" TV - we think we know enough about the subject to say that we know something about something.

Information is does not exist in compartmentalized structures, but in crystalline structures, where every bit of information relates directly to a large number of adjoining concepts, and indirectly to every other bit of information. If you can simply take a step back and look at the broader structure of knowledge (or just watch a show like Discovery Channel's "Connections 2") you find that knowledge, math, history, philosophy, and politics are all the same thing, developing simultaneously (not parallel) over time. Just bear in mind a remarkably few general principles, and a whole lot of things become fairly simple.

This, actually, is the primary way by which I seem much smarter than I really am: my mind (as a result of slightly unusual neurotransmitter chemistry) naturally spots the crystalline structure of ideas. In high school, for example, I was studying calculus and physics at the same time, which made both classes easier. I slept through a great many physics lessons, but the math was so similar between the two that they were essentially the same subject. Physics was just a review lesson of calculus, except with ephemeral mathematical variables being replaced by "solid" values like the gravitational constant of the universe. But all the same thing. I got the same lessons as everyone else, I just learned them in different ways: somewhere along the line, I gained enough information about enough subjects to obtain the critical mass necessary for them all to stop being separate subjects.

So, with regard to my last few posts. I learned about the Rhyolite program from a book called "Deep Black" that my dad had on his bookshelf. My dad himself was an electrical engineer involved in the space program, so he also taught me the basis of optical and electromagnetic physics from a practical (as compared to mathematical) perspective. I can't tell you the math about propagation and transmission of radio waves, but I have a passing knowledge of the hardware and implications of propagation and transmission. When I learned about things like long-baseline interferometry and synthetic apertures, that knowledge fit into my mind's crystalline structure at a point adjacent to my knowledge of radio telescopy (the commonly known use for aperture synthesis and interferometry), which was only one step removed from my knowledge of radio telescope use by the NRO as a political/military tool (as ex amplified in the Rhyolite program).

So, late one post-9/11 night when I was suffering from insomnia and wondering if there was any need to be afraid of a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, I started wondering if there were any possible way that a well-funded nation might be able to keep track of the location of nuclear weapons from orbit.

First step, consider what you want to track. What is it about them that makes them distinct from other things on earth and thus, differentiable (track able) from everything else. Realization that nuclear weapons, because they're necessarily made of radioactive components, necessarily emit radiation consistent with ongoing radioactive decay. Gamma rays and x-rays, which are just certain precisely defined parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Next step: consider whether the United States has the capability of monitoring bands of the electromagnetic spectrum on a global scale. Realization that the United States has had that capability since the 70's as exemplified by the Rhyoliteprogram. Next step, consider whether that technology could be used to listen for gamma and x-rays. Realization that, at least in theory: yes. Might take some different hardware to listen for x- and gamma-waves instead of the radio- and microwaves used for communication, but with smarter people than me at the helm of any such theoretical project, no reason why not. NASA launched an orbital gamma-ray telescope in 1991. The NRO (which refers to the National Reconnaissance Office, it such a thing officially existed, and - if it did exist - would have funding orders of magnitude greater than NASA) could theoretically launch some similar satellites looking downward to earth instead of outward to the Van Allen belt. The NRO was looking at the earth through optical telescopes (the Keyhole Program, again from "Deep Black") a hell of a long time before NASA was looking at the heavens through the Hubble Program. Draw your own conclusions about other parts of the electro-optical spectrum.

Next step, consider whether the hardware would make it work, given the fairly low radioactive emissions of even a nuclear critical mass. Can you build sensitive enough gear to hear the transmissions from orbital distances? Realization that, in theory, that's pretty simple. Based on aperture synthesis and long-baseline interferometry, all you need is an atomic clock on board each of several listening satellites, and a system (probably laser-based) to know the precise - and I do mean precise - location of each listening satellite in relation to each other satellite, and in relation to any point on the earth. If you can manage that, the fact that there's a lot of distance between the satellites offsets the fact that there's a lot of distance between the satellites and the transmitters, thanks to aperture synthesis. All you need is some massively powerful computers (which we've got) to crunch the numbers, and you can set up a system of satellites that can function like a single electromagnetic antenna with a diameter TEN TIMES GREATER THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE PLANET EARTH (which is only about 6,400 km). With the same information and some different (amazingly complex but very doable computer calculations) you can use different parts of that same satellite system to synthesize several antennas of smaller size (say 30,000 miles in diameter) in different orbital locations, with which you could triangulate to location of electromagnetic transmitters (nukes) on the surface of the earth.

Next, consider whether it would be accurate enough to be practical. Realization that it should be pretty good. Radio astronomers use the VLA to listen to radio waves from other solar systems, and the VLA can only synthesize an antenna about 22 miles in diameter, at a resolution of 0.05 arc-seconds. Even at that resolution, two or three such antennas in geostationary orbit (about 22,240 miles from earth) would be able to locate a transmitter on earth to within a few hundred yards. VLA-scale resolution is good enough to send in some Special Forces guys on an errand to fetch it or destroy any nukes located, and our theoretical array would be much more accurate than the VLA, since our theoretical synthetic aperture could be over 48,000 miles in diameter.

Next, consider whether it would be worth building. Realize that the system would theoretically reveal the location of every nuclear weapon on the planet. Yeah, that's the sort of capability that the United States would pay billions (or hundreds of billions) to get. Besides, the same array could also be used replace older birds (like Rhyolite) in the traditional tasks of listening in on radio transmissions, which is a nice fringe benefit.

I admit that this is all purely theoretical, and unsupported by any hard facts. But it's all supported by the underlying science, and can be thought up in the space of just a few minutes by an insomniac non-engineer law student with only passing knowledge of physics, astronomy, or nuclear chemistry. Suffice to say that much smarter people than I with much better knowledge of the available (but classified) technologies have been working night and day for decades on the same dilemma of tracking nukes, and have probably come up with answers to the problem much more clever than mine. That line of thinking, married to the overwhelming need for the United States to keep aware of threats, leads me to assert with absolute confidence that the United States military is aware of the exact location of every nuclear weapon on the face of the planet at every moment of every day. Barring some need to sink the Maine, no terrorist will ever succeed in exploding a nuclear weapon within the bounds of the United States. Hell, they haven't even managed success with SAMs against airliners; they got a long way to go before they're gonna bring the Big Fire.

This is how my mind works. Hold the problem in your mind, and keep an open mind about possible solutions. Almost always, your knowledge of the basic parameters of the problem will crystallize with other information in your mind, and lead you to a solution. Like, for example, the fact the nuclear weapons are made of fissile materials means that - theoretically at least - they can be tracked from afar using currently available technologies.

Which leads me back to my original point: there is no such thing as "miscellaneous information." Nor any other type of information the lies neatly encapsulated within the clear bounds of a subject heading. There's just information, which relates directly or indirectly to every other bit of information. So next time you're faced with some sort of technical or intellectual problem, try this: instead of narrowing your mind to focus on a possible solution, try opening up your mind to all possible solutions, and see what happens. Great thoughts generally won't fit through a narrow mind. And big problems generally require pretty impressive solutions.

Give it a try. It works for me.

The only problem is when you want to try and Turn It Off. Like, for example, when you haven't slept for 30 hours because of the endless chain thoughts bouncing around inside your head. From a peace of mind perspective, ignorance really is bliss. But that discussion for another time...