O.K., I have to say something. When I scientist I respect, Neil deGrasse Tyson, takes pot shots on Twitter: "Climate Change Deniers are often politically conservative", I feel compelled to say something.
If Neils Bohr had started calling Einstein incompetent, and had tried to discredit Einstein instead of (correctly) attacking the "science" behind Einstein's thought experiments, we probably would not have the Quantum theories we have today (if at all).
Bohr did the correct things, the ONLY things he could do when Einstein proposed his thought experiments on how Quantum Mechanics "failed". This is the type of science, "Bohr's science" that is required to disprove a proposed scientific theory. No other method can be used to invalidate, or disprove, a scientific theory.
If the scientists at the IPCC had simply shown where the science, or the data, used by the "nay-sayers" was wrong, I would have felt much better, and avidly joined the "team" warning about the dangers of anthropogenic Global Warming. But when the IPCC actually CHANGED the data in Lamb's original climate report (the same report issued by the IPCC in 1990) to reflect their beliefs, and had any scientist who questioned the data, the models used, or the results made into scapegoats and PERSONALLY attacked, I called bullshit.
When Michael Crichton denounces "consensus" science and calls for facts, transparency, and peer reviews (and immediately gets castigated by the scientists of the "consensus"), I call bullshit.
I'm sorry. I believe in the scientific method. The "consensus" was against Jenner when he suggested infecting someone with cowpox could immunize them against smallpox. His scientific proof finally won out (with rabid support from the general population). When Einstein invented thought experiments that poked holes in Quantum Mechanics, Bohr stayed up nights finding the holes in his experiments and presented them, directly, to rebut Einstein's conclusions. Both are good examples of the ideal way science should be practiced. Not "Consensus science". Not hiding the data, or the models, or calling the scientists who don't "believe" dirty names, or banning them. Not, in fact, by "believing" at all. But by looking at the data, at the test methods (models in this case), and slowly walking through all the steps used to arrive at the "anthropogenic" result. If you take the IPCC data, and their models, and accurately follow all the steps taken by the IPCC, you will wind up at the conclusion that there is significant anthropogenic cause for Global Warming.
If you do not. Then they are wrong. Period.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
The only thing.
Thinking about modern technology, I realize that we have been severely limited in our advancement by the folks who MARKET the technology. I would go so far as to say an entire industry, and the country as a whole, has been stultified by the "research data" produced by our marketing collectives across the US. They are all ignorant of what is good for the consumer, and therefore good for the economy & the US. With the obvious exception of Apple, who regularly defies conventional marketing strategies to create what the people REALLY want (even if Apple has to "manufacture" the perceived need). [Odd that nobody, since Steve came back, can figure that out. Maybe they all are listening to their internal marketing staff. (DUH!)]
Today's case in point. Telephony. The basic technology has been in existence for well over one hundred years. A diaphragm is placed in a way that it will vibrate in response to changes in air pressure (sound). It is coupled to a transducer, which creates a varying electrical signal in response to the fluctuations in that pressure. This signal is amplified and transmitted (via wire, radio waves, or both) to a terminal device (another transducer) that has the opposite function of the input transducer (input: microphone; output: speaker). This is all (now) well known.
Telephone designers have, for most of the past century, been driven by the needs of the consumers who use their devices. When businesses needed the ability to answer incoming client calls, and have any one in a group of "customer service representatives" answer these incoming calls, the multi-line phone was born. We've all seen them, a desk phone with a bank of buttons on it, each button being a different phone line. When the realization came that running a huge number of wires across the country, one pair of wires for each "conversation" taking place, was logistically impossible, "carrier" was created. Carrier is the multiplexing of up to 24 separate conversations onto a single pair of wires [by means of "piggy-backing" the relatively low and narrow frequency range of the human voice, multiple times, onto a much higher frequency signal (the "carrier") and transmitting that composite signal on two wires to their destination. Much like how the relatively small (low bandwidth) containers carried by trucks are loaded onto a MUCH bigger ship (high bandwidth) to be delivered to their destination.].
Telephone designers also incorporated this notion (multiple lines/conversations) when designing the last decade's cellular phones. To wit, the Motorola RAZR, (Motorola has designed the most utile cell phones over the past decades), has the ability to connect the user to up to four separate phone lines. A business person could use that phone easily to (almost) duplicate the utility they had at their desk. Wonderful design.
Enter the modern Marketing collective. What they see is the need to optimize the revenue streams in modern business. What marketing strategy can provide the needed increases in revenue streams? In the modern telephony market (cell), it is creating as many contracts as possible from the existing customer base. After all, profits "need" to grow at around 10% per year. Since the market is almost saturated, that growth must come from population growth. OOPS. THAT is highly unlikely to happen. Another space to increase contracts must be created (even by artifice). If every middle income or higher working person can be convinced that they need two cell phones, the required profit increase could be maintained for a number of years. By only allowing a single "phone line" per cell phone, you (artificially) create the need for separate business and personal phones, which require their own contract to operate in the US telephony system. TA-DA!! Problem (temporarily) solved!!
Thus we have arrived at the telephony market as it exists today. Good for profits (and profits are GOOD for EVERYONE), bad for innovation, and HORRIBLE for the consumer (business & individual alike).
Do not forget that this telephony "structure", as it exists in the US, limits the profits that can be made by the creators of the devices we use to make calls. For in the US, (except for Apple), cell phone manufacturers sell their phones to the telephone companies at a much smaller markup than they would if selling directly to the consumer. This hurts their bottom line, the revenue they have available for Research and Development, and, by extension, the utility, performance, and functionality of the phones they offer for sale. This "structure" also (almost arbitrarily) increases the price paid by consumers for the basic "cell phone service" they buy, because the price of the phone is hidden in the service cost structure. The ROI for the telephone company is VERY high (on the initial price of the "phone"), because it is not only recouped before the initial contract expires, but the contract price is not reduced by that amount after the price of the phone has been recovered by the phone company. Consumers who do not get a new phone upon the expiration of their contract are being bilked out of that "allotment" money until they do upgrade to a new phone. This is a good source of revenue for the phone companies. It is a bad deal for consumers.
What I propose is that the current model for the US telephony market ("Profit: the only thing") be changed to a model more in line with the European model. Where the consumer pays for the phone (once, and not continually), and then acquires a service contract for that phone from the telephone company of their choice. This would accomplish several (IMHO good) things. First, it would place more profit into the hands of the companies creating the devices. Leading to more research and development, plus phone features and functions more attuned to the desires/needs of the consumer (and not those merely tolerated by the phone companies). Since most of the "device manufacturers" also make the equipment that creates and supports the telephony infrastructure, it would most likely lead to a technologically advanced infrastructure (which would benefit everyone involved). Second, it would lead to the phone companies having to actually charge for the services rendered (and the cost thereof), not "pad" their contracts with some pseudo-calculated amount of money called "device cost recovery". This could well lead to the phone companies adopting and deploying newer technologies into their infrastructure in an effort to reduce, as much as possible, their outlay for the service they are selling. If that happened, it would benefit all the consumers. It might also lead to a more transparent cost structure for the "service" they are providing to consumers. Third, it would also mean, much to the chagrin of the phone companies, that they would, over time, once again become one of the "utilities" that they were before the creation of the "un-regulated market" (created during and after the Reagan era, with the promise, unfulfilled, of decreasing costs and benefitting the consumer). This would allow (if only Congress would avail themselves of the opportunity) for regulating the industry with an eye towards a high level of R&D, stability in the basic costs, and long term stability of the phone companies as a segment of the market (all of which would positively impact the US economy as a whole).
Finally, my own personal (greedy) reason for these proposals. The phone system, and the devices using that system, would be able to function efficiently with multiple (individual) phone "lines" incorporated into each end device (the phone itself). This could easily lead to individuals having multiple phone lines as a matter of course. I can see where it might be desirable to have (off the top of my head), four phone lines (or instances of "service" the phone companies can charge for) per individual. As follows: One would be the "family and close friends" line. The line that rings when someone emotionally important to you calls. Another would be the "business" line. Work and work associates would use that line to reach you when they needed. The third would be the "second class" line. The phone number used by acquaintances and other people you have met in person (but who have not yet reached the "critically important" level of family and close friends) to contact you. The fourth line would be your "public" line. Published in the "phone book" (and/or the online equivalent) and for use by all others. With the real cost of phone service regulated, transparent, and at a relatively low level, these "vanity" phone lines might just become popular to those who could afford a little more money on "phones". It would also mean that "basic' (connectivity) service would be quite inexpensive (which would benefit lower income households). With the proper "marketing", the vanity phone lines would be a stable, additional source of revenue for the phone companies (and probably taxes). That would stabilize the phone company's existence in the overall marketplace and make their stock worth buying (assuming they increased their dividends, which would be possible with the additional revenue from these multiple phone lines).
This, to the best of my ability, is how I think the "phone system" could be reconstructed to benefit all the parties involved (including the overall US economy). I'm sure I have missed some salient points. I am also sure it is not an "ideal" reconstruction. But it might just get some people thinking that "the only thing" that really matters is the consumer.
Today's case in point. Telephony. The basic technology has been in existence for well over one hundred years. A diaphragm is placed in a way that it will vibrate in response to changes in air pressure (sound). It is coupled to a transducer, which creates a varying electrical signal in response to the fluctuations in that pressure. This signal is amplified and transmitted (via wire, radio waves, or both) to a terminal device (another transducer) that has the opposite function of the input transducer (input: microphone; output: speaker). This is all (now) well known.
Telephone designers have, for most of the past century, been driven by the needs of the consumers who use their devices. When businesses needed the ability to answer incoming client calls, and have any one in a group of "customer service representatives" answer these incoming calls, the multi-line phone was born. We've all seen them, a desk phone with a bank of buttons on it, each button being a different phone line. When the realization came that running a huge number of wires across the country, one pair of wires for each "conversation" taking place, was logistically impossible, "carrier" was created. Carrier is the multiplexing of up to 24 separate conversations onto a single pair of wires [by means of "piggy-backing" the relatively low and narrow frequency range of the human voice, multiple times, onto a much higher frequency signal (the "carrier") and transmitting that composite signal on two wires to their destination. Much like how the relatively small (low bandwidth) containers carried by trucks are loaded onto a MUCH bigger ship (high bandwidth) to be delivered to their destination.].
Telephone designers also incorporated this notion (multiple lines/conversations) when designing the last decade's cellular phones. To wit, the Motorola RAZR, (Motorola has designed the most utile cell phones over the past decades), has the ability to connect the user to up to four separate phone lines. A business person could use that phone easily to (almost) duplicate the utility they had at their desk. Wonderful design.
Enter the modern Marketing collective. What they see is the need to optimize the revenue streams in modern business. What marketing strategy can provide the needed increases in revenue streams? In the modern telephony market (cell), it is creating as many contracts as possible from the existing customer base. After all, profits "need" to grow at around 10% per year. Since the market is almost saturated, that growth must come from population growth. OOPS. THAT is highly unlikely to happen. Another space to increase contracts must be created (even by artifice). If every middle income or higher working person can be convinced that they need two cell phones, the required profit increase could be maintained for a number of years. By only allowing a single "phone line" per cell phone, you (artificially) create the need for separate business and personal phones, which require their own contract to operate in the US telephony system. TA-DA!! Problem (temporarily) solved!!
Thus we have arrived at the telephony market as it exists today. Good for profits (and profits are GOOD for EVERYONE), bad for innovation, and HORRIBLE for the consumer (business & individual alike).
Do not forget that this telephony "structure", as it exists in the US, limits the profits that can be made by the creators of the devices we use to make calls. For in the US, (except for Apple), cell phone manufacturers sell their phones to the telephone companies at a much smaller markup than they would if selling directly to the consumer. This hurts their bottom line, the revenue they have available for Research and Development, and, by extension, the utility, performance, and functionality of the phones they offer for sale. This "structure" also (almost arbitrarily) increases the price paid by consumers for the basic "cell phone service" they buy, because the price of the phone is hidden in the service cost structure. The ROI for the telephone company is VERY high (on the initial price of the "phone"), because it is not only recouped before the initial contract expires, but the contract price is not reduced by that amount after the price of the phone has been recovered by the phone company. Consumers who do not get a new phone upon the expiration of their contract are being bilked out of that "allotment" money until they do upgrade to a new phone. This is a good source of revenue for the phone companies. It is a bad deal for consumers.
What I propose is that the current model for the US telephony market ("Profit: the only thing") be changed to a model more in line with the European model. Where the consumer pays for the phone (once, and not continually), and then acquires a service contract for that phone from the telephone company of their choice. This would accomplish several (IMHO good) things. First, it would place more profit into the hands of the companies creating the devices. Leading to more research and development, plus phone features and functions more attuned to the desires/needs of the consumer (and not those merely tolerated by the phone companies). Since most of the "device manufacturers" also make the equipment that creates and supports the telephony infrastructure, it would most likely lead to a technologically advanced infrastructure (which would benefit everyone involved). Second, it would lead to the phone companies having to actually charge for the services rendered (and the cost thereof), not "pad" their contracts with some pseudo-calculated amount of money called "device cost recovery". This could well lead to the phone companies adopting and deploying newer technologies into their infrastructure in an effort to reduce, as much as possible, their outlay for the service they are selling. If that happened, it would benefit all the consumers. It might also lead to a more transparent cost structure for the "service" they are providing to consumers. Third, it would also mean, much to the chagrin of the phone companies, that they would, over time, once again become one of the "utilities" that they were before the creation of the "un-regulated market" (created during and after the Reagan era, with the promise, unfulfilled, of decreasing costs and benefitting the consumer). This would allow (if only Congress would avail themselves of the opportunity) for regulating the industry with an eye towards a high level of R&D, stability in the basic costs, and long term stability of the phone companies as a segment of the market (all of which would positively impact the US economy as a whole).
Finally, my own personal (greedy) reason for these proposals. The phone system, and the devices using that system, would be able to function efficiently with multiple (individual) phone "lines" incorporated into each end device (the phone itself). This could easily lead to individuals having multiple phone lines as a matter of course. I can see where it might be desirable to have (off the top of my head), four phone lines (or instances of "service" the phone companies can charge for) per individual. As follows: One would be the "family and close friends" line. The line that rings when someone emotionally important to you calls. Another would be the "business" line. Work and work associates would use that line to reach you when they needed. The third would be the "second class" line. The phone number used by acquaintances and other people you have met in person (but who have not yet reached the "critically important" level of family and close friends) to contact you. The fourth line would be your "public" line. Published in the "phone book" (and/or the online equivalent) and for use by all others. With the real cost of phone service regulated, transparent, and at a relatively low level, these "vanity" phone lines might just become popular to those who could afford a little more money on "phones". It would also mean that "basic' (connectivity) service would be quite inexpensive (which would benefit lower income households). With the proper "marketing", the vanity phone lines would be a stable, additional source of revenue for the phone companies (and probably taxes). That would stabilize the phone company's existence in the overall marketplace and make their stock worth buying (assuming they increased their dividends, which would be possible with the additional revenue from these multiple phone lines).
This, to the best of my ability, is how I think the "phone system" could be reconstructed to benefit all the parties involved (including the overall US economy). I'm sure I have missed some salient points. I am also sure it is not an "ideal" reconstruction. But it might just get some people thinking that "the only thing" that really matters is the consumer.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Relatively Speaking.
They say that even if you send a single photon through a diffraction grating at a time, over time, an interference pattern will build up on the "screen" behind the grating. As if there are more than one photon traveling through the grating at a time.
Scientists theorize an answer to this problem by saying the interference comes from all the "nearby" alternate universes (alternate realities) that are doing the same experiment at the same time. All these photons are "reacting" with each other and forming the interference pattern as if they were all in this universe.
[Presumably a form of quantum entanglement.]
Star Trek touched upon this with the kid, Wesley Crusher, who found a way, WITHIN himself, to bridge these universes and instantly travel between them, at will.
Fringe (current TV show on FOX) is also basing its long range plot line on a version of this "alternate reality" (alternate universe) theory & making some decent story lines dealing with it.
Since I'm so busy lately <snicker>, I'm wondering if this whole concept isn't a matter of perception. Even, maybe, quantum mechanics only describes perception. Because it seems that in most of these experiments, (Schrödinger's Cat, for instance), we don't come across this "quantum goofiness" until we decide to do something. Measure something, watch something, even putting the cat & equipment into the box is "deciding something".
Time, also, according to modern physics, is relative and might not even exist at all in the 'absolute' (as Newton thought it did).
What I'm wondering here, is if "all this" is not a result of us observing, deciding, and trying to "measure" the universe around us. And if, somehow, we could truly "be" (in the purest Buddhist sense of the term), all these "problems" would be resolved.
And we might "see" the universe (and all around us) with fresh eyes and much clearer understanding.
Scientists theorize an answer to this problem by saying the interference comes from all the "nearby" alternate universes (alternate realities) that are doing the same experiment at the same time. All these photons are "reacting" with each other and forming the interference pattern as if they were all in this universe.
[Presumably a form of quantum entanglement.]
Star Trek touched upon this with the kid, Wesley Crusher, who found a way, WITHIN himself, to bridge these universes and instantly travel between them, at will.
Fringe (current TV show on FOX) is also basing its long range plot line on a version of this "alternate reality" (alternate universe) theory & making some decent story lines dealing with it.
Since I'm so busy lately <snicker>, I'm wondering if this whole concept isn't a matter of perception. Even, maybe, quantum mechanics only describes perception. Because it seems that in most of these experiments, (Schrödinger's Cat, for instance), we don't come across this "quantum goofiness" until we decide to do something. Measure something, watch something, even putting the cat & equipment into the box is "deciding something".
Time, also, according to modern physics, is relative and might not even exist at all in the 'absolute' (as Newton thought it did).
What I'm wondering here, is if "all this" is not a result of us observing, deciding, and trying to "measure" the universe around us. And if, somehow, we could truly "be" (in the purest Buddhist sense of the term), all these "problems" would be resolved.
And we might "see" the universe (and all around us) with fresh eyes and much clearer understanding.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
The New Millennium.
I was just telling some friends that, from my point of view, this new decade seems to really represent the completion of "installing a whole new set of rules" (when it comes to how the world seems to operate).
In the decades after WW II things may have changed, but (with a few exceptions) most of the change was in "amount" (smaller, faster, bigger, more powerful) or in the rate of change, not actually in some totally new direction (IMHO). It seems to me that things just got "MORE", since the end of that war. Whatever trend was begun back then, it seems to me that it just accelerated, not changed direction.
Even with technology, where we laud the changes and the speed of change, the fundamentals are really quite stagnant. Things have not fundamentally changed since the creation of transistors. Yes, we have changed from junction effects to field effects, but the fundamentals are the same. Yes, the "newer, faster, better" items have led to innovations that were not possible using the "old" technology. But it is the same damned integrated circuits. My argument is that the fundamentals had not changed since WW II (or, actually, BEFORE). It can also be argued that even though the underlying technology is quite different, the products brought before the consumers reflect only a size & cost difference between tubes & transistors. Therefore, from that point of view, transistors are just a continuation (or progression) of tubes. Therefore, the technology invented by De Forest and Armstrong has not fundamentally changed since they invented it. Progressed to ever cheaper, faster, and smaller, but not a true fundamental change. Looking back to the early 20th century, many other fundamentals have not really changed. Marketing & advertising, manufacturing, home appliances, architecture, the workings of the economy, building (and home) construction, transportation, communication, entertainment. All these are using the same fundamentals since the beginning of the last century. I think that if you examine the fundamentals of other main aspects of our lives, you will find that they, too, have not really changed.
Don't get me wrong, there HAVE been some interesting, and wonderful, new inventions. The inventions that called for a change in "the basics" were simply not implemented. Too expensive, or not enough vision by the folks with the money. Radical new home designs, for example, contrasted so much with "stick built" homes, that for the most part they were ignored (in ground homes, earth covered, are one example). I'm sure, given a few moments, one can think of other examples.
[Hey, tell me what I missed, or where I'm wrong !!]
From my point of view, this last decade (first of the millennium) seemed to be spent changing everything we know into something new. Really. The way business has to operate (although they don't quite see it yet), the way government needs to operate (again, our leaders don't yet see it), the way the WORLD is functioning [I think Russia & China see it, but the EU, U.S., and Japan (the post-war "western powers") do not yet see what is happening], and even where technology is heading is changing. I can almost see (or imagine) some of the changes taking place in the 1990s, but only when I look back from "here".
I think "human momentum" has now pretty much settled into a general direction, and I'm sure it will change some before it "really settles down".
Two questions assert themselves. One is: "What is next ?".
I wish I knew. I will try to really think about this, but I seriously doubt I can come up with anything that has not already taken place. I'm not that smart.
The remaining question, of course, is how do we bend these new "rules of life" to suit us like we have learned to bend the rules we all grew up with. I suppose that depends on just what these new rules are.
One remaining point. In human nature, as can readily be seen from history, it always costs dearly to cling to something when it is past it's usefulness (when it is over). Throughout history, people, leaders, cultures, and societies cling to something that has been passed by the currents of time, and it always costs far, far, more than it would have to accept and adapt to the changes initially.
The point being that I think we may (yeah, I don't know for sure, so I hedge), be in or entering a "time of change". Much like at the beginning of the industrial revolution, only more encompassing and intense. I am SURE our companies and government do not see it. They do not even have a clue.
If so, we are sure to pay. Very dearly and for an extended period. Those that have the most to lose will cling the tightest to what they have. And we might all pay for the "transition".
Welcome to the new millennium. :-)
In the decades after WW II things may have changed, but (with a few exceptions) most of the change was in "amount" (smaller, faster, bigger, more powerful) or in the rate of change, not actually in some totally new direction (IMHO). It seems to me that things just got "MORE", since the end of that war. Whatever trend was begun back then, it seems to me that it just accelerated, not changed direction.
Even with technology, where we laud the changes and the speed of change, the fundamentals are really quite stagnant. Things have not fundamentally changed since the creation of transistors. Yes, we have changed from junction effects to field effects, but the fundamentals are the same. Yes, the "newer, faster, better" items have led to innovations that were not possible using the "old" technology. But it is the same damned integrated circuits. My argument is that the fundamentals had not changed since WW II (or, actually, BEFORE). It can also be argued that even though the underlying technology is quite different, the products brought before the consumers reflect only a size & cost difference between tubes & transistors. Therefore, from that point of view, transistors are just a continuation (or progression) of tubes. Therefore, the technology invented by De Forest and Armstrong has not fundamentally changed since they invented it. Progressed to ever cheaper, faster, and smaller, but not a true fundamental change. Looking back to the early 20th century, many other fundamentals have not really changed. Marketing & advertising, manufacturing, home appliances, architecture, the workings of the economy, building (and home) construction, transportation, communication, entertainment. All these are using the same fundamentals since the beginning of the last century. I think that if you examine the fundamentals of other main aspects of our lives, you will find that they, too, have not really changed.
Don't get me wrong, there HAVE been some interesting, and wonderful, new inventions. The inventions that called for a change in "the basics" were simply not implemented. Too expensive, or not enough vision by the folks with the money. Radical new home designs, for example, contrasted so much with "stick built" homes, that for the most part they were ignored (in ground homes, earth covered, are one example). I'm sure, given a few moments, one can think of other examples.
[Hey, tell me what I missed, or where I'm wrong !!]
From my point of view, this last decade (first of the millennium) seemed to be spent changing everything we know into something new. Really. The way business has to operate (although they don't quite see it yet), the way government needs to operate (again, our leaders don't yet see it), the way the WORLD is functioning [I think Russia & China see it, but the EU, U.S., and Japan (the post-war "western powers") do not yet see what is happening], and even where technology is heading is changing. I can almost see (or imagine) some of the changes taking place in the 1990s, but only when I look back from "here".
I think "human momentum" has now pretty much settled into a general direction, and I'm sure it will change some before it "really settles down".
Two questions assert themselves. One is: "What is next ?".
I wish I knew. I will try to really think about this, but I seriously doubt I can come up with anything that has not already taken place. I'm not that smart.
The remaining question, of course, is how do we bend these new "rules of life" to suit us like we have learned to bend the rules we all grew up with. I suppose that depends on just what these new rules are.
One remaining point. In human nature, as can readily be seen from history, it always costs dearly to cling to something when it is past it's usefulness (when it is over). Throughout history, people, leaders, cultures, and societies cling to something that has been passed by the currents of time, and it always costs far, far, more than it would have to accept and adapt to the changes initially.
The point being that I think we may (yeah, I don't know for sure, so I hedge), be in or entering a "time of change". Much like at the beginning of the industrial revolution, only more encompassing and intense. I am SURE our companies and government do not see it. They do not even have a clue.
If so, we are sure to pay. Very dearly and for an extended period. Those that have the most to lose will cling the tightest to what they have. And we might all pay for the "transition".
Welcome to the new millennium. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)