Television and Boltzmann's Constant

In its most simle, layman's terms definition, the Boltzmann Constant states that over a period of time any system will eventually break down due to entropy. Boltzmann believed(and proved) that any system, no matter what the context was, would eventually succumb to entropy and chaos given enough time. Because I am not a math/science person and have little to no knowledge of the thermodynamics and other empirically objective systems Boltzmann was originally talking about, but instead apply the constant to something more relatable: television.
Whether it be casting changes, network budget cuts, a change in scriptwriters, or simply running out of ideas,
television shows that are on long enough will eventually get worse, no matter how good or long their "golden years" were. Shows will often turn to gimmicks to keep the writing fresh, as was the case with "Cousin Oliver" in The Brady Bunch, or the phrase-coining jumping-of-the-shark in Happy Day's twilight season.

Perhaps the most famous and documented example in scripted television available to us is Matt Groening's The Simpsons. First broadcast in 1989, the rise and fall of The Simpsons proves to be a textbook example of Boltzman's constant. 

Other shows simply crash and burn as they struggle to keep viewer engaged and stretch their believability and relatability further and further. For example, the penultimate season of My Name is Earl was revealed to all be a dream, a trope surprisingly common in television(here's looking at you, Dallas)




Is there a way to truly escape the Boltzmann Constant? The phrase "if you love something, let it go" comes to mind. Critically-lauded but underwatched shows(read: Firefly) seem to live on as martyrs, gaining notoriety and respect with each passing year, despite being virtually unknown in their televised run. However, this isn't a bad thing: bringing back brilliant shows cancelled at the top of their game simply means the entropy described in the Boltzmann constant is resumed. Ask any Arrested Development or Futurama fan how the post-cancellation revival episodes compare to the original ones. Joss Whedon isn't a flawless director, he simply quits(or is cancelled) while he's ahead.

Eaton Canyon Community Analyses

Community Analysis(click the tabs at the bottom of the page to access the different communities and graphs)

Eaton Canyon observed Plants

Cabrillo Beach Diversity

Intertidal Zone Diversity

Hahamonga Watershed Animal Scavenger Hunt

Below, you'll find a link to the species I identified in the Hahamonga watershed from about 8:30-11:00 AM.

Animal Scavenger Hunt

Willow Flowchart

A quick guide to identifying the three main species of willow in Eaton Canyon.

Plant Plasticity Project: Alnus Rombifolia notes

For this project, I observed how the white alder(Alnus rhombifolia) changed its form to better adapt to its environment. These are the notes that preceded the final project.

Day 1 Observations
-(branch angle: 15%) to the North

-"Tree-eyes" are almost exclustively present on the side of the tree opposite of the sunlight.

-THe branches grow on both sides, but branches on the south(lacking sunlight) side remain twiggy, while banches the sunny side grow large and thick.

-Some twiggy branches on the south side grow in a curved direction towards light.

-Leaves grow almost exclusively on the north side

-"Horror Vacuii"--any gap between leaves is filled by leaves from another plant(compare to rainforest plants)

-Twigs v branches

-Fast growth, fills space in response to the clean slate a flood creates

-Idea: Does mexican devil(Ageratina adenophora)'s growth fill the space where sunlight leaks through the alders?

-Mexican devil acts as a terrestrial version of the alder, many branches sprout  from their origin plant and try to absorb sunlight that manages to filter through the alder canopy


South Side of the river: Eyelets consistently about 3" apart, tree with 9" circumfrence had about a 1.5" distance between eyelets.

-Primary branches(primary being at least 4" in circumfrence): 7 out of 7 were facing one direction.
-Secondary branches(less than 4" in circumfrence) about 50% of branches on each side.
-90% of large branches are on the sun-facing side, the other 10% don't appear until about 15-20 ft up.

Note the angles of these branches: generally, they all jut out at about the same angle. In this case, approximately 35 degrees.

In this image,

Day 2: North Side
White alders on the north side follow the same principle of following the sunlight, only reversed: the branches grow south. The canyon wall does open a bit more here, so there are some alder branches that can grow large on the side opposite the river, but in general, the theory still applies.

-Mexican Devil seems to grow ina  poor, rocky soil where even alder cannot.
-Initial alder observation, seem to be heavily influened by the heights of the canyon walls--where the canyon walls are low or offer sunlight, alders grow straight up & have branches on all sides. When sunlight is poor, however, trees crane and stretch to grasp at the sunlight

-Also notable: when sunlight is plentiful, a few large individuals seem to grow as opposed to many small or medium specimens. In the areas with little light, many densely packed smaller, younger individuals grow in different directions.
Willow Riparian Alders
Here, alders dominate the landscape all along the river, growing in a line all along the exposed riverbank. Many more alders appear here, closer together in an almost unbroken line. They all grow straight up, but the secondary branches all face outward away from the alder grove, towards the sunlight and away from the shade.Mexican devil is uncommon. In one area, 30 alders grew in a 10 ft stretch.

-Alders can grow up to 30 inches a year, and are frequently the first plants to repopulate a river after a flood.

Reference Guide to Eaton Canyon Reptiles and Birds

Reptiles of Eaton Canyon

It's amazing to think that a foot traffic-heavy trail wedged into northern Pasadena can still have so much biodiversity. Simply in my own travels throughout the canyon, I have been witness to a number of species I was not aware lived so close to our sterile and innocuous cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods.

Tiger Whiptail(Cnemidophorous tigris) Tiger Whiptails are a common sight in Eaton Canyon, and seem to be in a perpetual hurry, darting across the path and into the bushes.

Southern Alligator Lizard(Elegaria multicarinatus). I only saw one of these guys, and apparently they are not afraid to bite, perhaps the origin of their common name.

Western Fence Lizard(Sceloporus occidentalis). These guys are everywhere! They have a bright blue belly, and the males can often be seen doing "push-up contests" to impress potential mates.

Western Rattlesnake(Crotalus viridis) Another species more common than I anticipated. Apparently, the rattlesnake's warning rattle has worked against the species in the last few centuries: because the snakes that rattled to make their presence aware were killed by humans, those that remained(and passed on their genes) were the rattlesnakes that did not rattle. This individual was young, and did not rattle, although I suspect that the rattle is something that is not present from hatching. Or it could be one of the aforementioned non-rattlers.

Dinosaurs Vs. Mammals: How Dinosaurs Got So Big

The largest land mammal of today, the african elephant, is certainly no featherweight. The largest males weigh  in at over 6 1/2 tons, can reach heights of up to 13 feet, and are perhaps the only mammal that cannot jump, since their immense weight would injure their legs upon landing. And yet, in the grand scheme of earth's backboned, land-dwelling occupants, the african elephant is rather underwhelming. The largest mammal ever, Paraceratherium, had a shoulder height of 16 ft and weighed up to 18 tons. Argentinosaurus is thought to have been about 100 feet long from nose to tail, and would have weighed around 80 tons. Some incomplete finds point to even larger dinosaurs, but the fundamental question remains: why did dinosaurs get so much larger than mammals? During my time at the museum, I was presented with a number of different viable hypotheses on the cause of the dinosaurs' giganticism. However, all of them faling under either external or internal factors.

 First, let's look at the external factors. The earth was a very different place 200 million years ago, when dinosaurs first appeared in the fossil record. For starters, the Mesozoic climate was warmer than ours today. For dinosaurs, who were presumed to be cold-blooded, this was huge. A warmer climate meant that dinosaurs were less at the mercy of the sun than today's reptiles, and compared to mammals of comparable size, being exothermic in a warm environment means saving energy on maintaining a huge body and its metabolism. Less energy spent on movement and metabolism means more energy for growth and reproducion. Second, the Mesozoic era had higher levels of oxygen: we can assume higher levels of oxygen fostered growth in dinosaurs. In a 2010 study, Arizona State University researchers raised dragonflies(who are themselves survivors of the dinosaur age) in environments with higher oxygen. On average, these dragonflies grew 15% larger than the control group. Multiply this effect on small dinosaurs over the course of millions of years, and it's not suprising the sizes they grew. Third, plants such as cycads, conifers, and ferns were plentiful, meaning there was less competition for food.

As far as internal factors go, dinosaurs had a few things working for them as well. To complement the higher oxygen levels, dinosaurs are thought to have had air sacs similar to modern day birds', allowing for more effective breathing thanks to the air sacs' billows-like assistance in breathing. These air sacs could have also filled some of the space in dinosaurs' skeletons to offset weight: a hollow spot in some dinosaurs' pelvises is thought to have housed an air sac. Second, dinosaurs had very dense bones. As philosophers and thinkers like Socrates and Galileo explained with the Square Cube Law, increases in height have exponential growth on a structure's weight and volume. Dinosaurs weren't immune to this law, but the density of their bones(coupled with the airs sacs) compensated for their immense girth.Third(and this is just my own conjecture), dinosaurs were able to grow new teeth throughout their life. The largest land animal today, the elephant, is remarkable in that its death in old age can almost invariably be linked to its teeth. An elephant goes through six pairs of massive molars in its life that it uses to chew all kinds of tough plant material. Once an elephant goes through these six sets, though, it is no longer able to effectively chew its food and dies. Elephants are especially long-lived mammals--some live into their seventies--if they were able to replace their teeth constantly, how much longer could they live? Perhaps dinosaurs are the answer to that question. Perhaps the largest dinosaurs we find are simply ancient specimens that were able to elude predators for decades, allowing them to reach their truly behemoth massive sizes.

Los Angeles Natural History Museum: Dinosaurs VS Mammals Notes

Mammals
-Most species had similar, stocky body shape
-Many herbivores of the Miocene/Pilocene built for speed, as were their predators
-Endortherms/Homeotherms: Able to produce their own heat, but expend plenty of energy in the process
Dinosaurs
-Dinosaurs(and birds) have hollow hips
-Some dinosaurs(i.e. ornatmental ones like styracosaurus or triceratops) had heads up to 1/3 their total body size
-Dinosaurs could grow new teeth, be it carnivores, omnivores, or herbivores(compare to elephants, who die after going through their five sets of teeth)
-Walked on tiptoes
-Body temp? Warmer temperatures in ancient times meant less energy expended on internal heating, more on movement
-Ectotherms: heart + metabolism
-The larger the reptile/dinosaur, the easier time they had controlling their overall body temperature
-Dino bones very dense
-Primary producers(cycads, ferms, conifers, ginkos, etc) were abundant because of warmer temperatures/better conditions, meaning food was plentiful
-Warmer temperatures
-Higher oxygen levels meant faster growth(here's an interesting modern-day study w/ dragonflies)
-Birds(and presumably dinosaurs) have air sacs in addition to lungs, these facilitate breathing and expend less energy
Misc.
-Cope's Law--dinosaurs' sizes increased over the 135-odd million years they were dominant. Mammals did as well, although both succumbed(are succumbing?) to Boltman's Constant