Learn about how spies can use light bulbs to eavesdrop on conversations; why atoms remind us of our solar system; and how you predictably lower your standards when waiting for the best option.
Learn about how spies can use light bulbs to eavesdrop on conversations; why atoms remind us of our solar system; and how you predictably lower your standards when waiting for the best option.
Please vote for Curiosity Daily in the 2020 Podcast Awards! Just register, select Curiosity Daily in the categories of People’s Choice, Education, and Science & Medicine, and click "submit" (voting in other categories is completely optional). Feel free to consider becoming a judge as well! https://www.podcastawards.com/app/signup/
Spies can eavesdrop on conversations by measuring changes in light output from a lightbulb by Grant Currin
Why do atoms and the solar system look alike? by Ashley Hamer (Listener question from Mohana)
When waiting for the best option, you lower your standards in a predictable way by Kelsey Donk
Subscribe to Curiosity Daily to learn something new every day with Cody Gough and Ashley Hamer. You can also listen to our podcast as part of your Alexa Flash Briefing; Amazon smart speakers users, click/tap “enable” here: https://www.amazon.com/Curiosity-com-Curiosity-Daily-from/dp/B07CP17DJY
Find episode trasncript here: https://curiosity-daily-4e53644e.simplecast.com/episodes/waiting-for-the-best-option-lowers-your-standards-spies-can-eavesdrop-using-light-bulbs-and-why-atoms-dont-look-like-the-solar-system
CODY: Hi! You’re about to get smarter in just a few minutes with Curiosity Daily from curiosity-dot-com. I’m Cody Gough.
ASHLEY: And I’m Ashley Hamer. Today, you’ll learn about how spies can use light bulbs to eavesdrop on conversations. Then, we’ll answer a listener question about why atoms remind us of our solar system. You’ll also learn about how you predictably lower your standards when waiting for the best option.
CODY: Let’s satisfy some curiosity.
Researchers have announced a breakthrough in espionage technology. They call it “Lamphone” — which, I know, might sound more Maxwell Smart than James Bond. And yet! This new technology could be a cheap way to eavesdrop on faraway conversations… using nothing more than the flickering of a lightbulb.
Here’s how it works. When someone talks, only the tiniest fraction of their soundwaves end up landing on an eardrum. Almost all of the energy is absorbed into the floor, walls, ceiling, and objects around them. The information encoded in those sound waves is typically lost for all practical purposes, but the researchers behind Lamphone have figured out how to recover just enough of it to recreate what was said.
They used a telescope and a light sensor to measure the very slight vibrations those soundwaves create on the surface of a lightbulb. Then they used software to transform that analog signal into a digital one, which a special algorithm could convert back into sound. If you already have a laptop, the whole setup costs less than a thousand dollars.
If that wasn’t unsettling enough, get this: the researchers tested their design by training a telescope on a lightbulb inside an office building. In the office, they played two recordings: a speech from a politician and The Beatles song “Let It Be.” They camped out on a bridge 80 feet away and used the system to listen in. The results? Surprisingly good. The sound they recovered was so high-quality that a digital transcription program was able to turn the audio of the political speech into text, and the listening app Shazam recognized the recovered audio version of “Let It Be.”
This new technology doesn’t mean anyone can listen to any private conversation. For one, it requires a clear line of sight between the telescope lens and a lightbulb in the room you want to listen in on. And while the researchers weren’t using top-of-the-line sensors, they did a few things to stack the deck in their favor. The light they used was a bare bulb hanging from the ceiling. Great for picking up vibrations, but not so common in real life. They also started from recordings that were played at a louder volume than typical human speech. Still, if you want to have a top-secret conversation? I’d recommend stepping into the hallway, just in case.
We got a listener question from Mohana, who writes, “The structure of atoms is the same as of our solar system. So if the solar system has an atom-like structure, and in turn has atoms in it with a solar-system-like structure, is our solar system basically a huge atom?” That’s a far-out question, Mohana!
But unfortunately, there’s one problem with your premise: the structure of atoms is not the same as our solar system. I don’t blame you for thinking so! Instead, I blame physicist Ernest Rutherford’s so-called “planetary model” of the atom, which — I hate to break it to you — was shown to be wrong way back in the 1910s. And yet science textbooks still use it as a diagram of the atom!
That planetary model makes it look like electrons orbit a nucleus like planets orbit the sun. By the 1920s, scientists had figured out that electrons are a lot stranger than that: they can behave as particles and as waves, and they don’t so much orbit as they kind of exist in every place around the nucleus at once. Well, not every place. Electrons inhabit discrete energy levels at different distances from the nucleus that are, maddeningly, called orbitals. But like I said, they don’t orbit like planets. This is quantum physics we’re talking about, where impossibly tiny particles exist more in fuzzy probabilities than in exact locations. While you could never see what an atom really looks like because it’s too tiny for light waves to reflect off of it, you can imagine an atom as a tiny nucleus surrounded by a huge, spherical cloud of buzzy electrons. Not a flat solar system.
But have you ever wondered why the solar system is flat like it is? Especially considering the fact that planets are round? Well, it all comes down to the forces at work. The main forces that shape a planet are gravity, which pulls inward, and pressure, which pushes outward. You have to find a shape that strikes a balance between those two forces to keep the planet from breaking apart. It’s a lot like sculpting clay on a pottery wheel. If you make any old shape and then make the wheel spin really fast, clay will splatter everywhere. But if you create a perfectly round bowl, you can spin the wheel as fast as you’d like and the bowl will retain its shape. It’s reached equilibrium. For a planet, that perfect shape is a sphere. But solar systems and galaxies don’t have a bunch of rock exerting outward pressure. Instead, they start as huge, sparse clouds of gas and dust slowly spinning out in space. Gravity pulls them inward just like it does with planets, but it’s their orbital motion that pushes against gravity, and the equilibrium between those two forces takes a different shape. That shape is a flat spiral — or a flat solar system. Thanks for your question, Mohana! If you have a question, send it in to podcast at curiosity dot com or leave us a voicemail at 312-596-3208.
Have you ever lowered your standards while waiting for the best option? I’m talking about those times you spent agonizing over when it was time to “pull the trigger,” as they say — whether you were waiting for the right job offer, the right person to marry, or the right house to buy. People often joke that the longer you wait, the lower your standards get. Welllll, new research shows that it’s more than a joke. When people are waiting for something better to come along, they tend to lower their standards — and they do it in a surprisingly predictable way.
And look, I know it’s hard to make a choice when options are presented one after another, not all at the same time. I mean, just imagine if you were able to see all of your potential job offers laid out before you on a platter. But that’s not the way it works. You might get one job offer this week while still waiting to hear back from your dream job — and you can’t just leave that first offer hanging. So what should you do? Do you go for the job offer you have, or turn it down and wait for the better one?
In a new study, researchers asked participants to do something that probably feels familiar to most of us: buy a plane ticket as cheaply as they could. The participants got 10 offers, one after another. Just like in real life, the price fluctuated as the departure date drew closer. I have anxiety just thinking about this. When’s the right time to buy?
In mathematics, this is known as an optimal stopping problem, and scientists have calculated the answer: you figure out the best deal out of the first 37 percent of your options, then choose the next one that beats that deal. Obviously, regular people don’t all go around crunching the numbers on every transaction they make. Instead, we use different strategies. The study found that we use what’s called a linear threshold model. With every subsequent option we consider, we lower our standards by the same amount. So like, for the flight, as every day passes, we resolve to pay even more for that plane ticket to get where we want to go.
The same is true for non-financial choices, like choosing a romantic partner or a university. Standards are highest at the start, and as time goes on, they get lower and lower.
But here’s the thing: the participants who used this strategy didn’t end up overpaying much. Sure, in the trials with the fewest good options, they overpaid by about 20 percent — but in other trials, the option they chose was pretty close to ideal. Lowering your standards isn’t always bad; sometimes it’s a good way to land on the best option available.
CODY: Before we wrap up, can you help us out? PodcastAwards.com
Here’s a sneak peek at what you’ll hear next week on Curiosity Daily.
ASHLEY: Next week, you’ll learn about how you can stay happier and healthier by sticking to your routines;
Why the Earth’s core doesn’t melt even though it’s really hot;
An audio illusion that sounds like a tone is rising forever;
Why you feel stronger after you exercise just one time;
And more!
CODY: Okay, so now, let’s recap what we learned today.
[ad lib optional]
CODY: Today’s stories were written by Grant Currin, Ashley Hamer, and Kelsey Donk, and edited by Ashley Hamer, who’s the managing editor for Curiosity Daily.
ASHLEY: Today’s episode was produced and edited by Cody Gough.
CODY: Have a great weekend, and join us again Monday to learn something new in just a few minutes.
ASHLEY: And until then, stay curious!