THE clamor to cut the budget deficit is deafening. Blue Dog Democrats, Tea Party Republicans and doomsday economists are calling for immediate action. And the demands for austerity coming from abroad are even louder.
Make no mistake: persistent large budget deficits are a significant problem. Government borrowing in good times crowds out private investment and lowers long-run growth. It can also make policy makers unable or unwilling to use adequate fiscal stimulus in times of need: concerns about the deficit limited the size of the stimulus act in 2009 and are a main reason that Congress has refused to take additional measures to cut our painfully high rate of unemployment. And our projected long-run deficits are simply unsustainable.
So, the question is not whether we need to reduce our deficit. Of course we do. The question is when.
Now is not the time. Unemployment is still near 10 percent in the United States and in Europe. Tax cuts and spending increases stimulate demand and raise output and employment; tax increases and spending cuts have the opposite effect. This is a basic message of macroeconomics and a central feature of public- and private-sector forecasting models. Immediate moves to lower the deficit substantially would likely result in a 1937-like “double dip” as we struggle to recover from the Great Recession.
Some advocates of austerity argue that, contrary to the conventional view, fiscal tightening now would lower long-term interest rates and improve confidence so much that the impact could be positive. But an ambitious new study in the World Economic Outlook of the International Monetary Fund confirms that fiscal consolidations — that is, deliberate deficit reductions — typically reduce growth substantially.
The study considers a wide range of advanced economies over the last three decades, so it doesn’t put too much weight on unusual episodes or focus on examples supporting particular conclusions. It also breaks new ground by looking specifically at times when governments changed taxes or spending with the aim of reducing deficits. Previous studies looked at summary measures of the budget situation, and likely included cases when strong economic performance caused lower deficits, not the other way around.
The recent experience of countries already carrying out austerity measures is consistent with the central finding of the I.M.F. study. Ireland, Greece and Spain have all had rising unemployment after moving to cut deficits.
Taking budget actions now that would further increase unemployment would be not only cruel, but also short-sighted. The longer unemployment remains high, the more likely it is to become permanent as workers’ skills deteriorate and they gradually drop out of the labor force.
Such a situation would be terrible for both the affected workers and the long-run budget situation. Imagine a patient with a slow-growing tumor who is also recovering from pneumonia. The outcome is likely to be worse if the patient is not given time to recover before undergoing surgery.
Waiting has the further benefit of allowing conventional monetary policy to regain its footing. The I.M.F. study found that the negative effects of deliberate deficit cuts are usually softened by reductions in interest rates. But interest rates in most advanced economies are already very low, and the effectiveness of central banks’ other tools, such as quantitative easing — buying certain securities to reduce long-term borrowing costs even further — is highly uncertain. As a result, monetary policy can currently do relatively little to counteract the impact of such deficit cuts.
But once the economy has substantially recovered, the Federal Reserve will be ready to raise interest rates. At that point, the Fed could help maintain growth by instead continuing very low rates as the deficit is reduced. Waiting for conventional monetary policy to be back on line is like waiting for the anesthesiologist to arrive before doing surgery.
True believers might say we should never wait, because a slow-growing tumor could turn virulent. But we need to think about actual risks. Today, markets are willing to lend to the American government at the lowest 20-year interest rate since 1958. In the crisis of 2008 and 2009, money flowed to the United States because it was seen as the safest spot in the storm. There is no evidence that we have to act immediately.
Countries that enjoy the markets’ confidence have another reason to wait. Greece and other troubled nations on the periphery of the euro zone can no longer borrow at affordable rates. They must immediately cut expenditures and raise taxes, despite the terrible toll on employment and output. Countries like the United States, Germany and France can play an essential role as sources of growth and demand for the world economy. Strengthening our economies will help keep the world from slipping into another recession, and allow for continued healing of vulnerable financial markets here and abroad.
WHILE immediate fiscal tightening isn’t wise for the United States, we do need to address the deficit. The best thing would be for Congress to pass a plan now that will reduce deficits when the economy is back to normal. France’s recent plan to gradually raise its retirement age to 62 from 60 is a classic example of such “backloaded” reduction. President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts on high incomes is another: it would raise revenue by only $30 billion in 2011, but by more than $600 billion over the next decade.
History shows that well-designed backloaded plans are credible. For example, changes to Social Security eligibility and taxes have been passed years, if not decades, before they took effect. And in an environment like today’s, when Congress has again agreed to pay-as-you-go rules, deviating from planned reforms forces countervailing actions.
Such backloaded deficit reduction would not hurt growth in the short run — and could raise it. If uncertainty about future budget policy is harming confidence, as some business leaders suggest, spelling out future spending and tax changes could be helpful. More important, showing that policy makers can come together and make essential decisions about our fiscal challenges would reassure all Americans that our economic future is better than the current grim reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/business/24view.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Yes, You’re Smart, but Can You Make Money?
This interview with Kenneth Feld, chairman and C.E.O. of Feld Entertainment, was conducted and condensed by Adam Bryant. Feld Entertainment’s operations include Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey circus and Disney on Ice.
Q. How did you get started in your family’s business?
A. In the summers I always worked with my father, and I think my motivation for getting in the business was to work with my dad, because we had an extraordinary relationship. I was fortunate that he was in a business that I loved and had a passion for.
He acquired Ringling Brothers in November 1967. I was in college, so my summer jobs for the summer of ’68 and the summer of ’69 were going all over the world, primarily Eastern Europe, hiring circus talent.
That was an extraordinary education because, at the time, there were still communist countries, and I spent most of three months in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, East Germany. I would deal with the ministries in those countries because the circus was sort of their art form for the masses. So that was my first exposure to something pretty exotic and unusual.
Q. Can you talk about what you learned from your father?
A. It’s been an interesting road. In 1971 we sold the circus to Mattel. So we operated and worked for Mattel for about 11 years. And then in 1982, my father and I repurchased the circus from Mattel and it became a privately owned business. And it’s been that way ever since. He passed away in ’84, and I was 34 years old and all of a sudden I have this whole company. We had been extremely close. I always say he taught me everything I know and then everyone else taught me everything I didn’t know. What I mean by that is I sort of learned on the job at dinner.
We’d be traveling four or five days a week, and he would rehash the whole day over a three-hour dinner. And he would smoke two or three cigars and have a Cognac and literally go sentence by sentence about what happened in the day, and what did I think, and here’s why he did what he did. And he would always listen to me, and that was a learning experience.
So when he died, because I had no outside experience, it took me a while to figure out who I was, and that I couldn’t think, “Oh, this is what my father would have done.” I had to take a different path and also create a stronger management team. And I knew what I knew and what my skills were, and I had to bring people in who had skill sets that I didn’t have.
Q. And what were those?
A. My strengths are really in the creative side, coming up with big ideas, knowing how to get them done. But the day-to-day and the administration are something that I wasn’t good at, because I didn’t have the interest. I started restructuring the company around ’94, and I found out that you never stop. And I now have an outside president and chief operating officer who take care of all of the day-to-day, and we have constant communications and meetings. But I don’t get involved in the detail the way I used to.
As a result of that, I’ve been able to become a lot more objective in looking at the business — what’s happening today, but more importantly, what do I think is going to happen next year and in the next five years.
Q. What else did you learn from your father about leadership and management?
A. I learned, more than anything, to listen. From the time I was a kid he would ask me a question and he would listen to my opinion. I’ve always tried to listen to everyone who works in the company. I think that’s more important than talking.
Q. What else?
A. Another big thing was: make decisions. He said: “You’re a smart guy. You’ll be right 90 percent of the time. But if you don’t make the decision, no one will ever know.”
Q. And now your children work for you.
A. Yes, I have three daughters and they’re all in the business. My role has changed a lot since they’ve come in. It’s shifted from doing to more of a mentor role. So it’s listening. I can offer the experience, but instead of saying, “Why don’t you do this?” I tend to frame advice in the form of questions because it then stimulates thinking, versus, “This is what I want,” because people are going to do what the boss wants. So I’ll throw out three or four alternatives and then let them think about it.
Q. Anything different about the way you work with them, compared with how your father worked with you?
A. Before they joined the company, they had to work elsewhere for two years. I worked for Feld Entertainment my whole career, so the perspective that I had was what I learned inside the company. They’ve all worked different places, so they were able to bring to the company something, a real contribution because they were good at what they did.
Also, for their own self-confidence, they knew they could go out and make a living and survive and they didn’t need the company. It’s also helped them with the other associates. There’s a different level of respect.
And I made them write papers to tell me: “Why do you want to come into the company? What do you think you can contribute? Where are your strengths and what is your passion — and it can’t be about a paycheck.” And they all had very, very different ideas of what they wanted to do.
They report to the president and chief operating officer. He negotiates their salary. They will talk to me about creative decisions and we co-produce a lot of the shows together. It’s almost like I’m used as an encyclopedia, which is great because I have 40 years of experience.
Q. Running a circus must be pretty complicated.
A. It is the most complex entity on the planet. Each show may have people from 14 different cultures. We’re their employer but we’re also the landlord. We know the best and worst about everyone because they’re living on our milelong train. I think that understanding people allows you to understand everything, because you can always learn process. The only way you learn about people is to spend time with them and you have to show everyone respect.
Here’s an example: Every year when we do a new show, we bring down to Florida 130 performers who never, for the most part, knew each other beforehand. About 10 days into our rehearsal period, we have Act Night, where everybody performs their act uncut, untouched by us, for every other performer.
That is the true test of respect. No matter what anyone thought of a person, if they’re doing an act that is so unbelievable and death-defying, the respect level goes way up. You have earned the respect strictly by what you have done — it’s very pure. It is an absolute lesson in earning respect. Respect does not come from a title. It comes from what you do, and how you do it, and how you work with people, and I think that’s a difficult thing for people to understand.
I may say, “You’re hired in such and such a position and you have this title,” but that means nothing. You can be the smartest person in the world and it means nothing if you don’t earn the respect of the people you have to interact with. I’ve tried to teach that to people — that if you come in and act like you know everything, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, people aren’t going to hear your good ideas.
Q. How do you hire for a position at the corporate office, a direct report?
A. I’ll give you the example of when I hired Mike Shannon, who’s president and chief operating officer. I had been looking for probably 10 months and I walked into the search firm’s office and the guy was sitting there. He was in transition from one position and they said, “Oh, why don’t you talk to this guy?”
So I sat down and talked to him. He said to me, “I don’t know anything about putting on a circus.” I said, “I wouldn’t expect that you would.”
He said: “I don’t know anything about the entertainment business. I’ve never been in the entertainment business before. What I can tell you is, I love people. I love to mentor people. I love to get the most out of people and I’ll never lie to you. You’ll get the good, the bad, and the ugly.” And about a week later, I hired him and that was it.
There’s a trust I have with him that is the same kind of trust that I had with my father and that I have with my daughters, and I think that’s the hardest thing to find — people you can absolutely trust. I don’t need people to give me good news. I mean they’re waiting in line to give you good news. I want people who can deliver the unvarnished truth to me so that I can make proper decisions. There’s no good way to deliver bad news, that’s for sure, so you just want somebody that’s straight out — “Here’s what this situation is.”
Q. What about other people where it’s more of a traditional interview?
A. For executives, as opposed to directors and creative people, I’ll read their résumé, and then I’ll say to them: “You’re really smart, but do you know how to make money? Tell me some things about how you made money.” And then they have to really think because the party line doesn’t work. It gets beyond just the typical corporate stuff. That’s really a key thing because you want people to really think like that. It’s hard to find today.
Q. Do some people have trouble answering?
A. Let me tell you, nothing kills an interview like that. So they have to stop and think. “What do you mean?” And I’ll say: “Like when you were a kid growing up, did you have a lemonade stand? What have you done?” And then I try to take them through their career, because I need them to understand that if they’re going to come to work for our company, it’s great that you have all this knowledge, but how can you translate that into something that is absolutely going to make money for us? Can they think unconventionally? Can they think outside the box?
Q. What quality are you testing for with this question of, “Tell me how you’ve made money.”?
A. It’s a drive I’m looking for. I don’t need to hire college professors in my business. We’re grinding it out and I need to know that the people that we have involved in the business are focused on sales, on the bottom line.
How do you make money? How do you take this crazy idea that somebody has and how can you monetize it? And if you’ve done that before in a couple of situations, then there’s a good chance you’re going to be very successful in our company because we’re demanding. We’re out there day in and day out.
Q. If you could ask somebody only two or three questions to know whether you might hire them, what would they be?
A. It depends, obviously, on the position. But one is: “What is your style of working with people who report to you? How do you work with them? What do you do on a daily basis?” That’s important because you can put the wrong person in a job, and you can take a great department and just decimate it in no time with the wrong person.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/business/24corner.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Q. How did you get started in your family’s business?
A. In the summers I always worked with my father, and I think my motivation for getting in the business was to work with my dad, because we had an extraordinary relationship. I was fortunate that he was in a business that I loved and had a passion for.
He acquired Ringling Brothers in November 1967. I was in college, so my summer jobs for the summer of ’68 and the summer of ’69 were going all over the world, primarily Eastern Europe, hiring circus talent.
That was an extraordinary education because, at the time, there were still communist countries, and I spent most of three months in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, East Germany. I would deal with the ministries in those countries because the circus was sort of their art form for the masses. So that was my first exposure to something pretty exotic and unusual.
Q. Can you talk about what you learned from your father?
A. It’s been an interesting road. In 1971 we sold the circus to Mattel. So we operated and worked for Mattel for about 11 years. And then in 1982, my father and I repurchased the circus from Mattel and it became a privately owned business. And it’s been that way ever since. He passed away in ’84, and I was 34 years old and all of a sudden I have this whole company. We had been extremely close. I always say he taught me everything I know and then everyone else taught me everything I didn’t know. What I mean by that is I sort of learned on the job at dinner.
We’d be traveling four or five days a week, and he would rehash the whole day over a three-hour dinner. And he would smoke two or three cigars and have a Cognac and literally go sentence by sentence about what happened in the day, and what did I think, and here’s why he did what he did. And he would always listen to me, and that was a learning experience.
So when he died, because I had no outside experience, it took me a while to figure out who I was, and that I couldn’t think, “Oh, this is what my father would have done.” I had to take a different path and also create a stronger management team. And I knew what I knew and what my skills were, and I had to bring people in who had skill sets that I didn’t have.
Q. And what were those?
A. My strengths are really in the creative side, coming up with big ideas, knowing how to get them done. But the day-to-day and the administration are something that I wasn’t good at, because I didn’t have the interest. I started restructuring the company around ’94, and I found out that you never stop. And I now have an outside president and chief operating officer who take care of all of the day-to-day, and we have constant communications and meetings. But I don’t get involved in the detail the way I used to.
As a result of that, I’ve been able to become a lot more objective in looking at the business — what’s happening today, but more importantly, what do I think is going to happen next year and in the next five years.
Q. What else did you learn from your father about leadership and management?
A. I learned, more than anything, to listen. From the time I was a kid he would ask me a question and he would listen to my opinion. I’ve always tried to listen to everyone who works in the company. I think that’s more important than talking.
Q. What else?
A. Another big thing was: make decisions. He said: “You’re a smart guy. You’ll be right 90 percent of the time. But if you don’t make the decision, no one will ever know.”
Q. And now your children work for you.
A. Yes, I have three daughters and they’re all in the business. My role has changed a lot since they’ve come in. It’s shifted from doing to more of a mentor role. So it’s listening. I can offer the experience, but instead of saying, “Why don’t you do this?” I tend to frame advice in the form of questions because it then stimulates thinking, versus, “This is what I want,” because people are going to do what the boss wants. So I’ll throw out three or four alternatives and then let them think about it.
Q. Anything different about the way you work with them, compared with how your father worked with you?
A. Before they joined the company, they had to work elsewhere for two years. I worked for Feld Entertainment my whole career, so the perspective that I had was what I learned inside the company. They’ve all worked different places, so they were able to bring to the company something, a real contribution because they were good at what they did.
Also, for their own self-confidence, they knew they could go out and make a living and survive and they didn’t need the company. It’s also helped them with the other associates. There’s a different level of respect.
And I made them write papers to tell me: “Why do you want to come into the company? What do you think you can contribute? Where are your strengths and what is your passion — and it can’t be about a paycheck.” And they all had very, very different ideas of what they wanted to do.
They report to the president and chief operating officer. He negotiates their salary. They will talk to me about creative decisions and we co-produce a lot of the shows together. It’s almost like I’m used as an encyclopedia, which is great because I have 40 years of experience.
Q. Running a circus must be pretty complicated.
A. It is the most complex entity on the planet. Each show may have people from 14 different cultures. We’re their employer but we’re also the landlord. We know the best and worst about everyone because they’re living on our milelong train. I think that understanding people allows you to understand everything, because you can always learn process. The only way you learn about people is to spend time with them and you have to show everyone respect.
Here’s an example: Every year when we do a new show, we bring down to Florida 130 performers who never, for the most part, knew each other beforehand. About 10 days into our rehearsal period, we have Act Night, where everybody performs their act uncut, untouched by us, for every other performer.
That is the true test of respect. No matter what anyone thought of a person, if they’re doing an act that is so unbelievable and death-defying, the respect level goes way up. You have earned the respect strictly by what you have done — it’s very pure. It is an absolute lesson in earning respect. Respect does not come from a title. It comes from what you do, and how you do it, and how you work with people, and I think that’s a difficult thing for people to understand.
I may say, “You’re hired in such and such a position and you have this title,” but that means nothing. You can be the smartest person in the world and it means nothing if you don’t earn the respect of the people you have to interact with. I’ve tried to teach that to people — that if you come in and act like you know everything, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, people aren’t going to hear your good ideas.
Q. How do you hire for a position at the corporate office, a direct report?
A. I’ll give you the example of when I hired Mike Shannon, who’s president and chief operating officer. I had been looking for probably 10 months and I walked into the search firm’s office and the guy was sitting there. He was in transition from one position and they said, “Oh, why don’t you talk to this guy?”
So I sat down and talked to him. He said to me, “I don’t know anything about putting on a circus.” I said, “I wouldn’t expect that you would.”
He said: “I don’t know anything about the entertainment business. I’ve never been in the entertainment business before. What I can tell you is, I love people. I love to mentor people. I love to get the most out of people and I’ll never lie to you. You’ll get the good, the bad, and the ugly.” And about a week later, I hired him and that was it.
There’s a trust I have with him that is the same kind of trust that I had with my father and that I have with my daughters, and I think that’s the hardest thing to find — people you can absolutely trust. I don’t need people to give me good news. I mean they’re waiting in line to give you good news. I want people who can deliver the unvarnished truth to me so that I can make proper decisions. There’s no good way to deliver bad news, that’s for sure, so you just want somebody that’s straight out — “Here’s what this situation is.”
Q. What about other people where it’s more of a traditional interview?
A. For executives, as opposed to directors and creative people, I’ll read their résumé, and then I’ll say to them: “You’re really smart, but do you know how to make money? Tell me some things about how you made money.” And then they have to really think because the party line doesn’t work. It gets beyond just the typical corporate stuff. That’s really a key thing because you want people to really think like that. It’s hard to find today.
Q. Do some people have trouble answering?
A. Let me tell you, nothing kills an interview like that. So they have to stop and think. “What do you mean?” And I’ll say: “Like when you were a kid growing up, did you have a lemonade stand? What have you done?” And then I try to take them through their career, because I need them to understand that if they’re going to come to work for our company, it’s great that you have all this knowledge, but how can you translate that into something that is absolutely going to make money for us? Can they think unconventionally? Can they think outside the box?
Q. What quality are you testing for with this question of, “Tell me how you’ve made money.”?
A. It’s a drive I’m looking for. I don’t need to hire college professors in my business. We’re grinding it out and I need to know that the people that we have involved in the business are focused on sales, on the bottom line.
How do you make money? How do you take this crazy idea that somebody has and how can you monetize it? And if you’ve done that before in a couple of situations, then there’s a good chance you’re going to be very successful in our company because we’re demanding. We’re out there day in and day out.
Q. If you could ask somebody only two or three questions to know whether you might hire them, what would they be?
A. It depends, obviously, on the position. But one is: “What is your style of working with people who report to you? How do you work with them? What do you do on a daily basis?” That’s important because you can put the wrong person in a job, and you can take a great department and just decimate it in no time with the wrong person.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/business/24corner.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Blurring the Line Between Apps and Books
STEPHEN ELLIOTT, a 38-year-old from San Francisco, just introduced his first piece of software for sale: an app for the iPad and iPhone called “The Adderall Diaries.”
He’s not exactly a programmer — better to call him a writer. And the app that he conceived looks a lot like an electronic book. That is, most people who buy the app will do so to read the text of “The Adderall Diaries,” his “memoir of moods, masochism and murder” based on his childhood in Chicago group homes, which was published in hardcover last year by Graywolf Press.
But Mr. Elliott says he has good reasons for producing his own iPad app, separate and apart from the e-book version of “Adderall Diaries” that is for sale, say, for the Kindle or the iPad reader from Apple. But those reasons are not the artistic, meta-fictional ones you might suspect — you know, so that when characters enter a bar, you suddenly hear music and a glass dropped by the waiter, or more fancifully, you can make them turn around and go somewhere else.
Rather than exploit the multimedia potential of an app book, Mr. Elliott said he wanted to include tools that cater to a special group: Stephen Elliott readers.
“As an author, I want you to have the best experience,” he said. “People want to talk about the books they are reading with other people. Why, with everything we know, wouldn’t you include a chat room with your e-book?”
Once readers buy the app, he says, they are beginning a relationship with him and other readers; they can leave comments and read responses and updates from the author. They may even be told down the line that he has a new book for sale and then be able to buy it through the app.
This practical, business-oriented focus is something he shares with the developer of his iPad app, Electric Literature, a company with offices at the foot of the Brooklyn entrance to the Manhattan Bridge that was founded by Andy Hunter and Scott Lindenbaum, who met as Brooklyn College M.F.A. students in 2006.
Electric Literature is a literary journal that enlists all manner of digital formats, like PDFs, Kindle, iPhone, YouTube animations. The money saved by not using a printer ($5,000 by their reckoning) goes to pay five authors $1,000 each for appearing in the journal.
In the more than a year since the founding, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Lindenbaum said in an interview at their offices, the challenges of marketing a digital journal have taken up the bulk of their time, rather than finding great writing to publish. Early on, the novelist Rick Moody worked with Electric Literature to produce a short story in little bursts on Twitter, generating a lot of free publicity.
“We really care about the community of independent publishers,” Mr. Hunter said. “We’re publishers. We’re not going into the game to be software developers.”
Nonetheless, last weekend, Electric Literature introduced a separate service at electricpublisher.com, to create an inexpensive book app along the lines of what it made for Mr. Elliott. The pricing starts at $600 for a single book app, with additional charges for creating an app-based bookshelf that contains more than one book for sale.
To create a book app, Electric Literature had to come up with its own e-reader software: before you can consider tools that allow for sharing comments or sending messages, or incorporating video and audio clips, for that matter, Mr. Hunter said, “the experience has to be equal with iBooks,” referring to Apple’s e-reader software.
And how can a little company come up with software to equal Apple or Amazon? Motivated programmers who believe in the literary mission, he said: “That’s what technology is all about. It’s a disruptive force, where a very small group can compete with the big guys.”
Right now, Electric Literature has only a few book apps either made or in development, including the journal’s. Mr. Elliott, the author of seven books, says he has sold apps only in the “double digits,” substantially fewer than in print or e-book form. Dennis Johnson of Melville House Publishing says he is working with Electric Literature to introduce an app book before Thanksgiving. He will not disclose the title now, for fear of stoking interest before it is for sale.
The attraction is obvious, he said.
“If you publish work that is hard to sell in the American market, say literary fiction in translation, this is another format to hardcover, paperback and e-book,” he said. “A fourth line of revenue.”
In an interview, he imagined the possibilities, such as having readers whose devotion is deeper than merely dipping into a title, who would install a piece of software onto a phone or tablet. “I love the idea of putting books on subscription,” he said, “of having a membership in your publishing house, of having a readership invested in your books.”
Of course, for all the independence an app gives a publisher, especially a small publisher or individual writer, there are tolls along the way: Apple gets 30 percent of every app sold and every “in-app purchase,” which is processed through its iTunes store. Mr. Elliott pays that charge, as well as the share his publisher, Graywolf, takes for an e-book sale. (Thus the iBooks version of “Adderall Diaries” costs $9.99, the iPad app $14.99.)
And Apple makes no bones about being more intrusive in dealing with apps, which it “curates,” as opposed to the books it sells. As Jesse David Hollington, the applications editor for the Web site iLounge, described last month, Apple has particular guidelines for apps developers: “We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical app.”
Which means that to Apple, Mr. Elliott is a programmer, not a writer.
“They have some kind of rating system,” he said. Before approving the app, “they asked me if there was sex and violence, and I said, ‘Yeah, a lot.’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/business/media/25link.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
He’s not exactly a programmer — better to call him a writer. And the app that he conceived looks a lot like an electronic book. That is, most people who buy the app will do so to read the text of “The Adderall Diaries,” his “memoir of moods, masochism and murder” based on his childhood in Chicago group homes, which was published in hardcover last year by Graywolf Press.
But Mr. Elliott says he has good reasons for producing his own iPad app, separate and apart from the e-book version of “Adderall Diaries” that is for sale, say, for the Kindle or the iPad reader from Apple. But those reasons are not the artistic, meta-fictional ones you might suspect — you know, so that when characters enter a bar, you suddenly hear music and a glass dropped by the waiter, or more fancifully, you can make them turn around and go somewhere else.
Rather than exploit the multimedia potential of an app book, Mr. Elliott said he wanted to include tools that cater to a special group: Stephen Elliott readers.
“As an author, I want you to have the best experience,” he said. “People want to talk about the books they are reading with other people. Why, with everything we know, wouldn’t you include a chat room with your e-book?”
Once readers buy the app, he says, they are beginning a relationship with him and other readers; they can leave comments and read responses and updates from the author. They may even be told down the line that he has a new book for sale and then be able to buy it through the app.
This practical, business-oriented focus is something he shares with the developer of his iPad app, Electric Literature, a company with offices at the foot of the Brooklyn entrance to the Manhattan Bridge that was founded by Andy Hunter and Scott Lindenbaum, who met as Brooklyn College M.F.A. students in 2006.
Electric Literature is a literary journal that enlists all manner of digital formats, like PDFs, Kindle, iPhone, YouTube animations. The money saved by not using a printer ($5,000 by their reckoning) goes to pay five authors $1,000 each for appearing in the journal.
In the more than a year since the founding, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Lindenbaum said in an interview at their offices, the challenges of marketing a digital journal have taken up the bulk of their time, rather than finding great writing to publish. Early on, the novelist Rick Moody worked with Electric Literature to produce a short story in little bursts on Twitter, generating a lot of free publicity.
“We really care about the community of independent publishers,” Mr. Hunter said. “We’re publishers. We’re not going into the game to be software developers.”
Nonetheless, last weekend, Electric Literature introduced a separate service at electricpublisher.com, to create an inexpensive book app along the lines of what it made for Mr. Elliott. The pricing starts at $600 for a single book app, with additional charges for creating an app-based bookshelf that contains more than one book for sale.
To create a book app, Electric Literature had to come up with its own e-reader software: before you can consider tools that allow for sharing comments or sending messages, or incorporating video and audio clips, for that matter, Mr. Hunter said, “the experience has to be equal with iBooks,” referring to Apple’s e-reader software.
And how can a little company come up with software to equal Apple or Amazon? Motivated programmers who believe in the literary mission, he said: “That’s what technology is all about. It’s a disruptive force, where a very small group can compete with the big guys.”
Right now, Electric Literature has only a few book apps either made or in development, including the journal’s. Mr. Elliott, the author of seven books, says he has sold apps only in the “double digits,” substantially fewer than in print or e-book form. Dennis Johnson of Melville House Publishing says he is working with Electric Literature to introduce an app book before Thanksgiving. He will not disclose the title now, for fear of stoking interest before it is for sale.
The attraction is obvious, he said.
“If you publish work that is hard to sell in the American market, say literary fiction in translation, this is another format to hardcover, paperback and e-book,” he said. “A fourth line of revenue.”
In an interview, he imagined the possibilities, such as having readers whose devotion is deeper than merely dipping into a title, who would install a piece of software onto a phone or tablet. “I love the idea of putting books on subscription,” he said, “of having a membership in your publishing house, of having a readership invested in your books.”
Of course, for all the independence an app gives a publisher, especially a small publisher or individual writer, there are tolls along the way: Apple gets 30 percent of every app sold and every “in-app purchase,” which is processed through its iTunes store. Mr. Elliott pays that charge, as well as the share his publisher, Graywolf, takes for an e-book sale. (Thus the iBooks version of “Adderall Diaries” costs $9.99, the iPad app $14.99.)
And Apple makes no bones about being more intrusive in dealing with apps, which it “curates,” as opposed to the books it sells. As Jesse David Hollington, the applications editor for the Web site iLounge, described last month, Apple has particular guidelines for apps developers: “We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical app.”
Which means that to Apple, Mr. Elliott is a programmer, not a writer.
“They have some kind of rating system,” he said. Before approving the app, “they asked me if there was sex and violence, and I said, ‘Yeah, a lot.’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/business/media/25link.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Risk to Vietnamese Growth
Vietnam has been an occasional darling of international investors, and right now the on-again-off-again romance appears to be back on again. Sustaining that will be another matter, however. All is not well, as the country experiences an expanding credit bubble and suffers mounting inflation. This raises the danger that Hanoi could retreat from market reforms at the National Congress of the Communist Party set for January.
The "story" for international investors consists of high growth rates coupled with an entrepreneurial population. Foreign investment has flowed to utilities, manufacturing and real estate in the hopes of serving Vietnam's growing middle class. Foreign direct investment this year is $12.2 billion as the country slowly brings back investors it lost during the global financial crisis.
This growth story comes with caveats, however. The most obvious is inflation. Current estimates peg this year's price increase at nearly 9% year-over-year, after Vietnamese consumers recovered from inflation as high 27% in late 2008. The two largest cities, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, have seen prices increase by 1% for the month of September alone.
The fundamental problem is that Hanoi has tried to use ultra-cheap bank credit to fuel growth, a strategy that has sparked inflation. The State Bank of Vietnam has kept real interest rates in negative territory by setting the refinancing rate at 8% and discount rate at 6%. Meanwhile, new credit amounted to 37% of GDP in 2007, 20% in 2008 and 35% last year. The government aims to expand credit by another 25% of GDP this year in an effort to fuel growth.
Liberalization has not been rapid enough to create profitable new uses for that cash. Instead, much of the money goes to large, inefficient state-owned enterprises. Small business owners have long complained about being unable to procure loans from Vietnamese commercial banks. Banks have instead been extending large amounts of credit to the likes of Vinashin, the near-bankrupt ship-building conglomerate and one of Vietnam's largest state-owned enterprises. The company carries an estimated $4.7 billion in debt and is the single largest debtor for many Vietnamese banks.
One consequence of this credit-expansion policy is that since all the new money is not funding productive investments, it is generating rapid inflation instead. Another result is that banks have left themselves exposed to huge write-downs once Vinashin's total bill comes due. When Fitch downgraded Vietnam's credit rating from BB- to B+ in July, it noted that if Vietnam's banks used international accounting standards, nonperforming loans would be three to five times higher than what is reported under Vietnam's standards. The Government Inspection Office last week discovered that five commercial banks had violated procedures by granting short-term loans they should not have.
To make matters worse, there is also the lurking danger of a balance of payments crisis. Last month, the International Monetary Fund reported that Vietnam's foreign currency reserves for the first half of the year had fallen to only seven weeks worth of imports, below the three-month guideline recommended to avert a balance of payments crisis.
Large amounts of foreign currency from international trade and overseas remittances do flow into Vietnam's economy, but a large, unknown amount does not end up in the banking system. Vietnamese business owners who survived through times of war, famine and hyperinflation have become accustomed to holding onto dollars and gold rather than the volatile dong. It is unlikely that sentiment on the dong will pick up enough to shift behavior away from hoarding dollars to selling dollars to banks.
The central bank is not blind to all these dangers. State Bank of Vietnam Governor Nguyen Van Giau has tried to rein in inflation by tightening monetary policy. This month he raised the required capital-adequacy ratio to 9% from 8% in an attempt to force banks to hold more cash on their balance sheets instead of lending.
But here politics comes into play, and particularly the jostling for position ahead of January's Congress. The politically connected managers who run Vietnam's large state-owned enterprises hold considerable sway in the upcoming Congress, so ambitious party officials ignore demands for cheap credit at their own peril. As a result, no sooner had Mr. Giau raised the capital ratio than other government officials pressed the central bank to further lower lending rates, effectively negating the tightening. Mr. Giau will likely not have a free hand to tame inflation until after January.
Instead, it is starting to look like party officials increasingly attribute all these worries not to their own economic mismanagement and failure to implement deeper reforms, but to the reforms they have already made. One sign is that the government has resorted to old-style price controls rather than market-based mechanisms like interest-rate adjustments to try to bring inflation under control.
That is the worst possible outcome. Vietnam needs more market-oriented reform, not less, to create productive outlets for longer-term capital investment. That includes giving banks greater scope to lend to small, entrepreneurial companies. It also means avoiding measures like price controls that deter long-term foreign investors while encouraging short-term speculators who bet mainly on policy moves rather than long-term growth.
Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung had been considered a market reformer, but it is becoming clear that command-and-control habits die hard. Investors will watch January's Congress closely to see whether Hanoi still understands that liberalization is the path to growth, or whether Vietnam retreats back to its old ways.
Mr. Phan is an economic research analyst in New York.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304741404575565160572033020.html?mod=djkeyword#articleTabs%3Darticle
The "story" for international investors consists of high growth rates coupled with an entrepreneurial population. Foreign investment has flowed to utilities, manufacturing and real estate in the hopes of serving Vietnam's growing middle class. Foreign direct investment this year is $12.2 billion as the country slowly brings back investors it lost during the global financial crisis.
This growth story comes with caveats, however. The most obvious is inflation. Current estimates peg this year's price increase at nearly 9% year-over-year, after Vietnamese consumers recovered from inflation as high 27% in late 2008. The two largest cities, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, have seen prices increase by 1% for the month of September alone.
The fundamental problem is that Hanoi has tried to use ultra-cheap bank credit to fuel growth, a strategy that has sparked inflation. The State Bank of Vietnam has kept real interest rates in negative territory by setting the refinancing rate at 8% and discount rate at 6%. Meanwhile, new credit amounted to 37% of GDP in 2007, 20% in 2008 and 35% last year. The government aims to expand credit by another 25% of GDP this year in an effort to fuel growth.
Liberalization has not been rapid enough to create profitable new uses for that cash. Instead, much of the money goes to large, inefficient state-owned enterprises. Small business owners have long complained about being unable to procure loans from Vietnamese commercial banks. Banks have instead been extending large amounts of credit to the likes of Vinashin, the near-bankrupt ship-building conglomerate and one of Vietnam's largest state-owned enterprises. The company carries an estimated $4.7 billion in debt and is the single largest debtor for many Vietnamese banks.
One consequence of this credit-expansion policy is that since all the new money is not funding productive investments, it is generating rapid inflation instead. Another result is that banks have left themselves exposed to huge write-downs once Vinashin's total bill comes due. When Fitch downgraded Vietnam's credit rating from BB- to B+ in July, it noted that if Vietnam's banks used international accounting standards, nonperforming loans would be three to five times higher than what is reported under Vietnam's standards. The Government Inspection Office last week discovered that five commercial banks had violated procedures by granting short-term loans they should not have.
To make matters worse, there is also the lurking danger of a balance of payments crisis. Last month, the International Monetary Fund reported that Vietnam's foreign currency reserves for the first half of the year had fallen to only seven weeks worth of imports, below the three-month guideline recommended to avert a balance of payments crisis.
Large amounts of foreign currency from international trade and overseas remittances do flow into Vietnam's economy, but a large, unknown amount does not end up in the banking system. Vietnamese business owners who survived through times of war, famine and hyperinflation have become accustomed to holding onto dollars and gold rather than the volatile dong. It is unlikely that sentiment on the dong will pick up enough to shift behavior away from hoarding dollars to selling dollars to banks.
The central bank is not blind to all these dangers. State Bank of Vietnam Governor Nguyen Van Giau has tried to rein in inflation by tightening monetary policy. This month he raised the required capital-adequacy ratio to 9% from 8% in an attempt to force banks to hold more cash on their balance sheets instead of lending.
But here politics comes into play, and particularly the jostling for position ahead of January's Congress. The politically connected managers who run Vietnam's large state-owned enterprises hold considerable sway in the upcoming Congress, so ambitious party officials ignore demands for cheap credit at their own peril. As a result, no sooner had Mr. Giau raised the capital ratio than other government officials pressed the central bank to further lower lending rates, effectively negating the tightening. Mr. Giau will likely not have a free hand to tame inflation until after January.
Instead, it is starting to look like party officials increasingly attribute all these worries not to their own economic mismanagement and failure to implement deeper reforms, but to the reforms they have already made. One sign is that the government has resorted to old-style price controls rather than market-based mechanisms like interest-rate adjustments to try to bring inflation under control.
That is the worst possible outcome. Vietnam needs more market-oriented reform, not less, to create productive outlets for longer-term capital investment. That includes giving banks greater scope to lend to small, entrepreneurial companies. It also means avoiding measures like price controls that deter long-term foreign investors while encouraging short-term speculators who bet mainly on policy moves rather than long-term growth.
Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung had been considered a market reformer, but it is becoming clear that command-and-control habits die hard. Investors will watch January's Congress closely to see whether Hanoi still understands that liberalization is the path to growth, or whether Vietnam retreats back to its old ways.
Mr. Phan is an economic research analyst in New York.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304741404575565160572033020.html?mod=djkeyword#articleTabs%3Darticle
As Dollar’s Value Falls, Currency Conflicts Rise
As Dollar’s Value Falls, Currency Conflicts Rise
Fast-growing nations like Thailand are trying to devalue their exchange rates to bolster their export-driven economies.In Washington, where “strong dollar” has been the mantra for years, policy makers are taking steps that could make the already weak dollar weaker still.
European policy makers worry that a resurgent euro will threaten growth in their own backyard. And the entire world, it seems, is jawboning China to level the playing field and let its undervalued currency, the renminbi, appreciate. It is a step that Beijing, by all accounts, does not want to take.
With so many economies struggling, it suddenly seems as if it is every nation for itself in the currency markets. Policy makers the world over are worried that economic rivals are trying to turn exchange rates to their advantage, and considering how they should respond to preserve jobs and growth at home.
Even as Washington chides Beijing over the renminbi, critics accuse the United States and other rich nations of waging an international currency war that harks to the protectionist policies of the 1930s, when nations looked out for themselves rather than working together.
“Today, there is a risk that the single chorus that tamed the financial crisis will dissolve into a cacophony of discordant voices, as countries increasingly go it alone,” Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said during a speech in Shanghai this week. “This,” he said, “will surely make everybody worse off.”
The abrupt decline in the dollar — by about 10 percent since early June against major currencies — is upsetting the delicate balance of world economies still recovering from the shocks of the financial crisis.
Many other currencies, especially in Asia and in emerging markets like Brazil, are soaring as a result of the dollar’s fall. Those nations’ domestic economies are attracting floods of speculative capital seeking higher interest rates and are at risk of overheating.
The dollar’s decline is being driven by what everyone in global markets is now expecting: another round of so-called quantitative easing by the United States. In the next few weeks, the Federal Reserve is expected to inject vast sums of money into the economy in another attempt to spur growth.
While such policies may benefit the convalescent United States economy, they are also drawing criticism that Washington is deliberately devaluing the dollar at others’ expense.
The dollar had at least a brief uptick on Tuesday, as global investors sought the currency as a haven after China startled the markets by raising interest rates. But its fall resumed on Wednesday, to a 15-year low against the yen, and currencies like Brazil’s real — up more than 12 percent since July against the dollar — were still lofty.
The tensions underline the startling fact that two years after the peak of the financial crisis, the world is on two tracks economically. Much of the developing world, including countries like China and Brazil, is growing fast, while the industrialized economies of the United States, Japan and much of Europe still struggle.
In Brazil, officials have been especially critical of United States policy. On Sept. 27, its finance minister, Guido Mantega, first described the currency tensions as practically an “exchange war, a trade war.” This week, Brazil’s central bank governor said that Washington’s expected monetary stimulus “creates serious distortions.”
In deflecting criticism, the United States emphasizes the role of China, an ever-growing power in the global economy. Beijing continues to peg the value of its currency to the dollar, despite an immense accumulation of foreign reserves and a persistent surplus in China’s account equal to about 10.5 percent of its annual economic output, a surplus that in standard monetary theory would prompt China to allow its currency to rise.
As a consequence of the link to the dollar, the Chinese renminbi has also declined — which is one reason that despite the fall in the dollar, the United States trade deficit has continued to widen.
The weakness in the renminbi, just as much as the dollar’s decline, has put pressure on economies across the developing world, where a weaker renminbi undercuts their exports, and hence their growth.
“We’re in this currency conflict because central banks have had to be pushed into the position of being policy makers of last resort,” said Barry Eichengreen, professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley, at a recent I.M.F. forum.
Financial markets expect the Fed to announce at its meeting early next month that it will proceed with more quantitative easing, involving purchases of bonds, which reduces longer-term interest rates and puts further downward pressure on the dollar.
That worries other countries. A stronger United States economy is in everyone’s interest, but they fear that investors will flee America’s low interest rates and declining dollar and instead pour capital into their markets, overheating their economies and creating the types of asset bubbles in stocks and housing that burst with such devastating effects in the 1990s.
Already there is evidence of this: American investment in overseas stock funds, which was running at about $4 billion a month over the summer, has surged since Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, suggested the possibility of another round of quantitative easing at the end of August. About $19 billion has flowed into these funds since Aug. 1, according to TrimTabs, a funds researcher.
In recent weeks, central banks around the globe, including those of the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Israel, Taiwan, Brazil and Japan, have intervened furiously in foreign exchange markets in hopes of weakening their own currencies. But currency speculators, moving just as fast, so far seem to be largely undermining those efforts by selling their dollars and betting that the American currency will continue its decline.
In the Chicago futures markets, one of the principal arenas where traders can take positions against the currency, positions betting on a depreciation of the dollar totaled $32.6 billion in the latest week, close to a record, according to the investment firm Nomura.
Some countries have gone further than merely criticizing the United States, embracing forms of capital controls to reduce incoming short-term investment. Brazil is increasing the tax on money flooding into its bonds. South Korea cited the need to check speculative foreign capital inflows.
Some economists play down the fears of currency battles and see the dollar’s movements as a natural readjustment to a weaker economic outlook in the United States. The dollar suffered periodic bouts of weakness before. It strengthened through 2008 but weakened in 2009. More generally, it has been on a longer-term decline since 2002. Some economists think it could recover again soon.
But others worry that that by letting the dollar weaken, Washington may be stoking dangerous inflationary pressures that will have repercussions around the world.
”The United States has an important role in the world economy to maintain stability and confidence in the dollar,” said John B. Taylor, a Stanford economist and former under secretary for international affairs at Treasury. “If you lose that, that could be detrimental.”
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Seven Steps to Managing Your Online Reputation
A camera-store salesman recently steered me away from the compact, ultrahigh-tech camera I thought I wanted. Smaller is fine, he told me, but only if it fits in your pocket — any bigger will end up hanging from your shoulder anyway, so what’s the advantage? And don’t buy based on fancy features, he added; the differences between comparable models rarely result in better pictures for amateurs. The one feature you’ll really appreciate, he said, is how the camera feels in your hand.
Simple insights, but they pointed me to a very different camera, one that I’m deliriously happy with. Not only that, it was a few hundred bucks cheaper than the one I had wanted. Maybe that’s why everyone at the five other camera stores I had been to was a lot more enthusiastic about the compact model.
That sort of no-nonsense, no-hard-sell advice is one reason the store, B&H Photo in New York, is to the cameraphile what L.L. Bean’s Freeport, Me., store is to the outdoor crowd. Of course, if you’re not close enough to New York to make that pilgrimage, you’ll have to settle for the company’s Web site — but maybe that’s not so terrible. B&H’s online sales arm gets mostly great reviews in forums and rating sites.
Yes, you read that right — a New York camera store Web site that gets good online ratings. Anyone who has hunted for a camera online knows that’s a feat that defies the very physics of online reputation management. There are few categories of product outside of porn and Viagra that have a worse reputation than the camera-sales world, with New York-based camera stores seemingly setting the standard — to read the reviews — for apparent dishonesty and shoddy customer service.
If that were the whole problem, any dealer could look great online simply by behaving decently. As it turns out, that’s not good enough. Camera sales can be tricky and confusing, thanks to lens and accessory options, frequent model upgrades, different types of warranties, fast-churning inventories, substantial product defect rates and more. And camera customers are notoriously finicky, impatient and emotional when it comes to making sure they get exactly what they expect to get, at the best possible price, right away. All of which can lead even scrupulous dealers to unintentionally disappoint shoppers. And shutter bugs love to vent online. That means that legitimate dealers struggle with bad ratings, too. And as many small businesses — and even some large ones — are finding out the hard way, online ratings can hit the bottom line hard.
So how does B&H keep its ratings clean? It starts with two words: Henry Posner. Mr. Posner is a former professional photographer who started handling online customer service for B&H 15 years ago and now has the title “social media coordinator.” He is a ubiquitous presence on camera-oriented forums, blogs, ratings sites, Facebook, Twitter and wherever camera people share info and complain. If you Google any combination of “Henry Posner” “camera” “post” “complaint” and “B&H,” you’ll see much of his time is spent addressing perceived wrongs with B&H customers — with remarkable success, to judge by the ratings.
I called the ebullient Mr. Posner and asked him for advice for the business owner struggling to build a great online reputation. Here’s what he told me, boiled down to seven key points.
Henry Posner’s Plan for Positive Posts
1) If a customer complains, confirm, confess and correct:
“When customers go online and complain, the first thing I do is research what happened. I don’t open my mouth online until I have the facts. If the customer is right, I apologize immediately, and I ask what I can do as a gesture of my concern. I’m always willing to be generous when I’m wrong, and most customers are looking for something modest.”
2. If you’re not at fault, calmly make your case:
“I’m always honest with the customer, and that includes defending myself and the store if we’re right. I disagree 18,000 percent with the saying that the customer is always right — not in retail, he’s not. If he’s wrong, I explain why, speaking with confidence and authority but without being hostile or aggressive. There’s nothing I can say online or even by e-mail that’s just between me and the customer — I’m really talking to everyone who ends up reading or chatting about it. Even if the customer is terribly misguided or purposely malicious, I believe he deserves a cogent, mature response. If a dissatisfied customer’s emotions get the better of him, I just stop and wait for someone else who’s following the conversation out there to jump in to tell the customer to tone things down and refocus. It’s not that no one ever gets to me — I might mumble something while I’m typing, and sometimes I even jump out of my chair and blow off a little steam here. But I don’t put it out there.”
3. Go the extra mile for a trying customer, but not the extra hundred miles:
“You just can’t please everyone, you learn that here quickly. One customer will complain that our deliveries require someone to be home to sign for the package, and the next customer will thank you for it. In every business there are customers that make themselves expensive to service, someone who wants too low a price, or too much special attention. Every company has to decide what the threshold is for keeping these customers. Sometimes I have a frank conversation with a customer. I say, ‘This is how far I can go to help you. Now, are you going to help me by compromising?’”
4. Customers appreciate useful info, not blab:
“I try to give the overall impression that we’re not just a box house but an interesting place to do business with. I’ll let people know that the Met” — the Metropolitan Museum of Art — “is doing a photo contest, or Adobe is offering a free seminar. But I don’t try to fill Facebook pages with endless chatter or send something out on Twitter every 15 minutes — they’ll start seeing it as spam. The name of the game is quality of comment, not quantity. There’s a sweet spot, and if you hit it, the sales will come. I never forget that there’s a bottom line in this place, and everything I do has to eventually come back to it. If I’m going to ask for a raise here, I need to be able to say where it’s going to come from.”
5. Customers only think they know what they want:
“My job isn’t to help you buy something just because you ask for it. It’s to help you find a product that in my experience meets your wants and needs. It’s not about making the most profitable sale, it’s about leaving the customer satisfied.”
6. Keep your friends close, but your competitors closer:
“I dialog online with competitors all the time. That’s good for the industry and good for us. Manufacturers listen to us more closely about what we need when we’ve compared notes with other dealers. And we can help each other avoid some real customer traps out there. I get warnings about customers who place orders, make demands and then badmouth dealers in the worst possible way all over the place. And if I see a fellow retailer unfairly taking a lot of heat online, I’ll step in and try to help. Then I know they’ll do the same for me.”
7. Speak softly and carry a big rep:
“I can pat myself on the back online all day long, but nothing will have the impact of a good review on a ratings site. And then when a customer asks me to match someone’s very low price, sure, maybe I can come down a few dollars. But after that, I’ll just say, go ahead and Google that store’s name, let’s see what comes up. I never have to badmouth a competitor. If they’re sleazy, the word will be out on them online.”
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/seven-steps-to-managing-your-online-reputation/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Simple insights, but they pointed me to a very different camera, one that I’m deliriously happy with. Not only that, it was a few hundred bucks cheaper than the one I had wanted. Maybe that’s why everyone at the five other camera stores I had been to was a lot more enthusiastic about the compact model.
That sort of no-nonsense, no-hard-sell advice is one reason the store, B&H Photo in New York, is to the cameraphile what L.L. Bean’s Freeport, Me., store is to the outdoor crowd. Of course, if you’re not close enough to New York to make that pilgrimage, you’ll have to settle for the company’s Web site — but maybe that’s not so terrible. B&H’s online sales arm gets mostly great reviews in forums and rating sites.
Yes, you read that right — a New York camera store Web site that gets good online ratings. Anyone who has hunted for a camera online knows that’s a feat that defies the very physics of online reputation management. There are few categories of product outside of porn and Viagra that have a worse reputation than the camera-sales world, with New York-based camera stores seemingly setting the standard — to read the reviews — for apparent dishonesty and shoddy customer service.
If that were the whole problem, any dealer could look great online simply by behaving decently. As it turns out, that’s not good enough. Camera sales can be tricky and confusing, thanks to lens and accessory options, frequent model upgrades, different types of warranties, fast-churning inventories, substantial product defect rates and more. And camera customers are notoriously finicky, impatient and emotional when it comes to making sure they get exactly what they expect to get, at the best possible price, right away. All of which can lead even scrupulous dealers to unintentionally disappoint shoppers. And shutter bugs love to vent online. That means that legitimate dealers struggle with bad ratings, too. And as many small businesses — and even some large ones — are finding out the hard way, online ratings can hit the bottom line hard.
So how does B&H keep its ratings clean? It starts with two words: Henry Posner. Mr. Posner is a former professional photographer who started handling online customer service for B&H 15 years ago and now has the title “social media coordinator.” He is a ubiquitous presence on camera-oriented forums, blogs, ratings sites, Facebook, Twitter and wherever camera people share info and complain. If you Google any combination of “Henry Posner” “camera” “post” “complaint” and “B&H,” you’ll see much of his time is spent addressing perceived wrongs with B&H customers — with remarkable success, to judge by the ratings.
I called the ebullient Mr. Posner and asked him for advice for the business owner struggling to build a great online reputation. Here’s what he told me, boiled down to seven key points.
Henry Posner’s Plan for Positive Posts
1) If a customer complains, confirm, confess and correct:
“When customers go online and complain, the first thing I do is research what happened. I don’t open my mouth online until I have the facts. If the customer is right, I apologize immediately, and I ask what I can do as a gesture of my concern. I’m always willing to be generous when I’m wrong, and most customers are looking for something modest.”
2. If you’re not at fault, calmly make your case:
“I’m always honest with the customer, and that includes defending myself and the store if we’re right. I disagree 18,000 percent with the saying that the customer is always right — not in retail, he’s not. If he’s wrong, I explain why, speaking with confidence and authority but without being hostile or aggressive. There’s nothing I can say online or even by e-mail that’s just between me and the customer — I’m really talking to everyone who ends up reading or chatting about it. Even if the customer is terribly misguided or purposely malicious, I believe he deserves a cogent, mature response. If a dissatisfied customer’s emotions get the better of him, I just stop and wait for someone else who’s following the conversation out there to jump in to tell the customer to tone things down and refocus. It’s not that no one ever gets to me — I might mumble something while I’m typing, and sometimes I even jump out of my chair and blow off a little steam here. But I don’t put it out there.”
3. Go the extra mile for a trying customer, but not the extra hundred miles:
“You just can’t please everyone, you learn that here quickly. One customer will complain that our deliveries require someone to be home to sign for the package, and the next customer will thank you for it. In every business there are customers that make themselves expensive to service, someone who wants too low a price, or too much special attention. Every company has to decide what the threshold is for keeping these customers. Sometimes I have a frank conversation with a customer. I say, ‘This is how far I can go to help you. Now, are you going to help me by compromising?’”
4. Customers appreciate useful info, not blab:
“I try to give the overall impression that we’re not just a box house but an interesting place to do business with. I’ll let people know that the Met” — the Metropolitan Museum of Art — “is doing a photo contest, or Adobe is offering a free seminar. But I don’t try to fill Facebook pages with endless chatter or send something out on Twitter every 15 minutes — they’ll start seeing it as spam. The name of the game is quality of comment, not quantity. There’s a sweet spot, and if you hit it, the sales will come. I never forget that there’s a bottom line in this place, and everything I do has to eventually come back to it. If I’m going to ask for a raise here, I need to be able to say where it’s going to come from.”
5. Customers only think they know what they want:
“My job isn’t to help you buy something just because you ask for it. It’s to help you find a product that in my experience meets your wants and needs. It’s not about making the most profitable sale, it’s about leaving the customer satisfied.”
6. Keep your friends close, but your competitors closer:
“I dialog online with competitors all the time. That’s good for the industry and good for us. Manufacturers listen to us more closely about what we need when we’ve compared notes with other dealers. And we can help each other avoid some real customer traps out there. I get warnings about customers who place orders, make demands and then badmouth dealers in the worst possible way all over the place. And if I see a fellow retailer unfairly taking a lot of heat online, I’ll step in and try to help. Then I know they’ll do the same for me.”
7. Speak softly and carry a big rep:
“I can pat myself on the back online all day long, but nothing will have the impact of a good review on a ratings site. And then when a customer asks me to match someone’s very low price, sure, maybe I can come down a few dollars. But after that, I’ll just say, go ahead and Google that store’s name, let’s see what comes up. I never have to badmouth a competitor. If they’re sleazy, the word will be out on them online.”
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/seven-steps-to-managing-your-online-reputation/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Obama and the High Cost of High Expectations
There's an old saying that putting someone on a pedestal makes it a lot easier to get kicked in the head. I mention this because two years ago many voters put Barack Obama on a very high pedestal. Expectations went through the roof as crowds of people (even outside the U.S.) shouted that oft-repeated campaign slogan, "Yes we can!" For the first time in many years, Americans foresaw a president who would mobilize the nation to greatness. After the distress of the economic meltdown, Obama represented a fresh start, with new energy, excitement, and hope.
Fast forward to 2010 and the general public is finally realizing that, as president, Obama cannot walk on water. Just one look at his approval ratings says it all:
In less than two years, President Obama's approval rating has gone from 45% to under 30% while his "disapproval" index has climbed from 12% to 45%. And the seemingly solid legislative majority that ushered him in may fall apart after the November elections. Indeed, many voters feel as though they've been "kicked in the head."
Now in fairness to President Obama, almost every president for the past fifty years has fallen in the polls after the first half of his term. It's common for candidates to be elected by making inspiring promises and convincing voters that they can actually make good on them. In other words: Politicians intentionally create high expectations. The realities of governing, however — the trade-offs, compromises, and frustrations — dash cold water on those expectations. And despite any concrete accomplishments, often the disillusioned public tends to focus exclusively on what has not happened. The challenge for the president at this point is to alter the leadership role that he had two years ago: Instead of creating expectations, Obama needs to manage them. And his future success — including whether he wins a second term — may depend on how well he does that.
The same phenomenon occurs in organizations. New executives and managers often start their assignments with a platform of change; project initiators "sell" decision-makers on the benefits and returns of their proposals; stock analysts rate companies based on expectations created for them by the CFO; and consultants are hired because of what they promise. In other words, expectations are part of the currency of decision-making. Just like in an election campaign, if you convince the decision-makers (be they voters or hiring managers) that you can fulfill your promises, you get the job (or contract, investment, stock price, etc.). The challenge arises after you are "elected," and you can't follow through on all your campaign promises.
To reduce the risk of projecting higher expectations than you can deliver, here are three guidelines to keep in mind when creating those expectations in the first place:
Create an expectations map. Don't assume that all expectations are created equally, particularly when there are multiple stakeholders involved. For example, your new boss may be looking for different things than your new subordinates, peers, or customers. So before you commit, take a hard look at the array of expectations and whether they are aligned or contradictory.
Balance stretch with realism. To win a job or assignment you may have to convey a sense of excitement or promise to increase the decision-makers' confidence in your abilities. However, be careful not to over-sell. Think through what it will take to achieve your goals and fulfill expectations — and be prepared to temper those expectations with reality. Decision-makers usually appreciate being told the truth if you do it the right way. For example, companies that announce mergers or acquisitions by talking about the challenges of integration, as well as the benefits, are usually rewarded with higher stock prices.
Manage expectations from beginning to end. Managing expectations is not something to do only after disappointment sets in, or when your numbers go down in the polls. Stay in touch with your stakeholders, keep them apprised of progress, and let them know about the problems you're encountering and the solutions you are trying. It's easier for people to deal with bad news when they know it's coming — and may even help generate solutions. Surprises, on the other hand, will undermine confidence and make it even tougher to move forward.
There's a delicate balance between creating expectations that others will buy and expectations that you can actually fulfill. And if the gap is too great — as it has become with President Obama — then you run the risk of having your reputation (or that of your company) plummet in the eyes of your original supporters.
What's your experience with creating and managing expectations?
http://blogs.hbr.org/ashkenas/2010/10/obama-and-the-high-cost-of-hi.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Fast forward to 2010 and the general public is finally realizing that, as president, Obama cannot walk on water. Just one look at his approval ratings says it all:
In less than two years, President Obama's approval rating has gone from 45% to under 30% while his "disapproval" index has climbed from 12% to 45%. And the seemingly solid legislative majority that ushered him in may fall apart after the November elections. Indeed, many voters feel as though they've been "kicked in the head."
Now in fairness to President Obama, almost every president for the past fifty years has fallen in the polls after the first half of his term. It's common for candidates to be elected by making inspiring promises and convincing voters that they can actually make good on them. In other words: Politicians intentionally create high expectations. The realities of governing, however — the trade-offs, compromises, and frustrations — dash cold water on those expectations. And despite any concrete accomplishments, often the disillusioned public tends to focus exclusively on what has not happened. The challenge for the president at this point is to alter the leadership role that he had two years ago: Instead of creating expectations, Obama needs to manage them. And his future success — including whether he wins a second term — may depend on how well he does that.
The same phenomenon occurs in organizations. New executives and managers often start their assignments with a platform of change; project initiators "sell" decision-makers on the benefits and returns of their proposals; stock analysts rate companies based on expectations created for them by the CFO; and consultants are hired because of what they promise. In other words, expectations are part of the currency of decision-making. Just like in an election campaign, if you convince the decision-makers (be they voters or hiring managers) that you can fulfill your promises, you get the job (or contract, investment, stock price, etc.). The challenge arises after you are "elected," and you can't follow through on all your campaign promises.
To reduce the risk of projecting higher expectations than you can deliver, here are three guidelines to keep in mind when creating those expectations in the first place:
Create an expectations map. Don't assume that all expectations are created equally, particularly when there are multiple stakeholders involved. For example, your new boss may be looking for different things than your new subordinates, peers, or customers. So before you commit, take a hard look at the array of expectations and whether they are aligned or contradictory.
Balance stretch with realism. To win a job or assignment you may have to convey a sense of excitement or promise to increase the decision-makers' confidence in your abilities. However, be careful not to over-sell. Think through what it will take to achieve your goals and fulfill expectations — and be prepared to temper those expectations with reality. Decision-makers usually appreciate being told the truth if you do it the right way. For example, companies that announce mergers or acquisitions by talking about the challenges of integration, as well as the benefits, are usually rewarded with higher stock prices.
Manage expectations from beginning to end. Managing expectations is not something to do only after disappointment sets in, or when your numbers go down in the polls. Stay in touch with your stakeholders, keep them apprised of progress, and let them know about the problems you're encountering and the solutions you are trying. It's easier for people to deal with bad news when they know it's coming — and may even help generate solutions. Surprises, on the other hand, will undermine confidence and make it even tougher to move forward.
There's a delicate balance between creating expectations that others will buy and expectations that you can actually fulfill. And if the gap is too great — as it has become with President Obama — then you run the risk of having your reputation (or that of your company) plummet in the eyes of your original supporters.
What's your experience with creating and managing expectations?
http://blogs.hbr.org/ashkenas/2010/10/obama-and-the-high-cost-of-hi.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Monday, October 18, 2010
Military Skill Sets Lead to Organizational Success
What value does the military have for an organization? World class, combat honed, and expansive skill sets in strategic planning, wargaming (competitor-on-competitor role play), competitive intelligence, leader development, rigorous standard enforcement, and innovation in execution are only a few of the cutting edge managerial skill sets that the military brings. Additionally, military veteran-to-CEO success stories such as Ken Hicks (Foot Locker), Bob McDonald (P&G), John Meyer (Acxiom), and Dave Grange (PPD) all credit military ethical foundations, decision making skills, practical leadership, and teamwork, and the focus of life-or-death situations that quickly developed them into decisive leaders focused on excellence, execution, and best-in-class performance.
For the organization, the value of the military-to-organization skill set transition comes when military skills and methodologies are translated into the context that creates the greatest value for the organization. Just because it worked well in combat or worked well for a military organization does not mean that it will do so for a civilian or commercial organization. A military technique must constantly translate the language, context, framework, and effectiveness of the military skills to the organization in which they now serve. Additionally, military skills must further be adapted to the organization as that organization transforms to position itself surrounding the factors of customers, competition, regulation, and other environmental influences. Just like combat, no environment, business model, or customer base is static — effective evolution is a must.
The military has a wide range of skill sets and proficiencies that business needs:
Intelligence: The military excels at systematic and ongoing analysis of competitors as well as how the operating environment influences the outcome and potential success of an operation. Additionally, a uniform, frequent, and ongoing intelligence effort provides a common competitive assessment to an organization. In an organization's leadership, how many leaders have a common view of competitive threats? How often is the competitive analysis updated?
Planning and Preparation: The creation of a timely, comprehensive, and structured plan is the hallmark of military operational planning. Many organizations do this well. However, what most organizations lack is the creation of multiple contingency plans, the use of wargaming or competitor-on-competitor scenarios, and mission rehearsals to ensure a flawless execution.
Execution: This requires the ability to rapidly adjust and improvise when an operation does not go according to plan. The use of Commander's Intent, a military planning and execution framework that describes the commander's description and definition of success, is an essential tool when operating in a dynamic and chaotic environment. When a plan changes, military personnel rapidly adjust their actions using independent action and initiative to meet Commander's Intent.
Team Leadership: The value of good leadership goes beyond the team being led. Good team leadership extends into leadership by example and positive role models that can inspire throughout the organization.
Subordinate Development: The military uses a process known as the performance counseling session employed by the immediate supervisor of a military member to address what soldiers, marines, sailors, or airmen did well, what they need to improve, and the plan of action to make them a better overall contributor. This inherent subordinate development process is of extraordinary value for an organization because it makes every employee in the organization better.
Military veterans and military techniques, when applied properly to an organization's culture and business processes, can bring value to corporations, non-profits, non-governmental organization, and educational institutions. All of these organizations can benefit in vast and immediate ways through the application of military skills to their operations.
http://blogs.hbr.org/frontline-leadership/2010/10/the-value-of-military-skill-se.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
For the organization, the value of the military-to-organization skill set transition comes when military skills and methodologies are translated into the context that creates the greatest value for the organization. Just because it worked well in combat or worked well for a military organization does not mean that it will do so for a civilian or commercial organization. A military technique must constantly translate the language, context, framework, and effectiveness of the military skills to the organization in which they now serve. Additionally, military skills must further be adapted to the organization as that organization transforms to position itself surrounding the factors of customers, competition, regulation, and other environmental influences. Just like combat, no environment, business model, or customer base is static — effective evolution is a must.
The military has a wide range of skill sets and proficiencies that business needs:
Intelligence: The military excels at systematic and ongoing analysis of competitors as well as how the operating environment influences the outcome and potential success of an operation. Additionally, a uniform, frequent, and ongoing intelligence effort provides a common competitive assessment to an organization. In an organization's leadership, how many leaders have a common view of competitive threats? How often is the competitive analysis updated?
Planning and Preparation: The creation of a timely, comprehensive, and structured plan is the hallmark of military operational planning. Many organizations do this well. However, what most organizations lack is the creation of multiple contingency plans, the use of wargaming or competitor-on-competitor scenarios, and mission rehearsals to ensure a flawless execution.
Execution: This requires the ability to rapidly adjust and improvise when an operation does not go according to plan. The use of Commander's Intent, a military planning and execution framework that describes the commander's description and definition of success, is an essential tool when operating in a dynamic and chaotic environment. When a plan changes, military personnel rapidly adjust their actions using independent action and initiative to meet Commander's Intent.
Team Leadership: The value of good leadership goes beyond the team being led. Good team leadership extends into leadership by example and positive role models that can inspire throughout the organization.
Subordinate Development: The military uses a process known as the performance counseling session employed by the immediate supervisor of a military member to address what soldiers, marines, sailors, or airmen did well, what they need to improve, and the plan of action to make them a better overall contributor. This inherent subordinate development process is of extraordinary value for an organization because it makes every employee in the organization better.
Military veterans and military techniques, when applied properly to an organization's culture and business processes, can bring value to corporations, non-profits, non-governmental organization, and educational institutions. All of these organizations can benefit in vast and immediate ways through the application of military skills to their operations.
http://blogs.hbr.org/frontline-leadership/2010/10/the-value-of-military-skill-se.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
NGUỒN GỐC VŨ TRỤ:
Nếu trong dân gian có rất nhiều huyền thoại dân gian và tôn giáo về sự sáng tạo ra vũ trụ (creation myth), kể cả huyền thoại sáng tạo của Do Thái – Ki Tô, mà ngày nay đã trở thành lỗi thời, thì trong khoa học chỉ có một thuyết giải thích nguồn gốc của vũ trụ (the origin of the universe) hay sự sinh ra của vũ trụ (the birth of the universe). Đó là thuyết "Big Bang". Thực ra, đằng sau thuyết Big Bang là cả một rừng toán học phức tạp, những thành quả khoa học qua nhiều thời đại, kỹ thuật đo lường với những dụng cụ tối tân nhất của khoa học kỹ thuật ngày nay v.. v.., sản phẩm của những đầu óc có thể nói là sáng nhất trong giới khoa học. Tuy nhiên, muốn hiểu Big Bang không phải là khó, chúng ta chỉ cần dùng cặp mắt trần nhìn lên những khoảng tối giữa các vị sao trên trời là có thể "thấy rõ" vũ trụ đã sinh ra từ một Big Bang. Mặt khác, chúng ta cũng có thể "thấy" Big Bang ngay trong chiếc TV mà chúng ta thường coi hàng ngày. Tôi sẽ trở lại về những cái "thấy" này trong một đoạn sau. Trong phần trình bày sau đây, tôi sẽ cố gắng viết về thuyết này một cách giản dị để cống hiến quý độc giả "câu chuyện Big Bang". Tuy nhiên, vì đây là một đề tài khoa học và khả năng của tôi chỉ có hạn, cho nên, nếu có độc giả nào đọc bài này mà phát dị ứng với khoa học thì đó là tại vì tôi chưa đủ khả năng để diễn giải rõ ràng một vấn đề, chứ không phải vì độc giả đó chưa đủ trí tuệ để hiểu. Một mặt khác, khoa học cần nhiều đến suy nghĩ và tưởng tượng. Cho nên, trong bài viết này tôi đòi hỏi độc giả đôi chút óc tưởng tượng và suy tư của con người.
Thật là kỳ lạ, cách đây hơn 2500 năm, Đức Phật đã đưa ra thuyết Vô Thường: Vạn Pháp, nghĩa là vũ trụ và mọi sự vật trong đó, thay đổi từng sát na, không có gì có thể gọi là Hằng Hữu, Hằng Sống, Hằng Tồn trong vũ trụ. Mọi sự vật, nếu đã do duyên sinh thì cũng do duyên mà diệt, đủ duyên thì sinh thành, hết duyên thì diệt, và thường đều phải trải qua bốn thời kỳ: thành, trụ, hoại, diệt. Ngày nay, trước những khám phá mới nhất của khoa học, từ thuyết tiến hóa của Darwin cho tới thuyết Big Bang về sự thành hình của vũ trụ, tất cả đều chứng tỏ thuyết duyên khởi là đúng.
Trong Kinh Hoa Nghiêm, Đức Phật cũng nói rõ: "Ngoài thế giới nhỏ nhoi của chúng ta còn có hằng hà sa số thế giới khác", và đã mô tả hình dạng của các thế giới này rất chính xác, thí dụ như có hình xoáy nước, hình bánh xe, hình nở như hoa v..v.. Ngày nay, khoa Vũ Trụ Học đã chụp được hình nhiều Thiên Hà trong vũ trụ có hình dạng giống như đã được mô tả trong Kinh Hoa Nghiêm, như sẽ được trình bày với ít nhiều chi tiết trong Phần II của cuốn sách này.
22 thế kỷ sau, vào thế kỷ 17, khoa học gia Giordano Bruno cũng đưa ra quan niệm là ngoài thế giới của chúng ta còn có nhiều thế giới khác. Ông bị giam 6 năm tù rồi đưa ra tòa án xử dị giáo. Tội của ông? Nhận định của ông trái với những lời "mặc khải" không thể nào sai lầm của Thần Ki-Tô trong Thánh Kinh của Ki-Tô Giáo: thế giới của chúng ta gồm có trái đất, mặt trời, mặt trăng và các vị sao mà mắt trần của chúng ta nhìn thấy hàng ngày là thế giới duy nhất mà Thần Ki-Tô tạo ra và trái đất là trung tâm của thế giới này. Vì là một Linh Mục dòng Đa Minh, tòa sẽ trả tự do cho ông nếu ông rút lại nhận định trái ngược với Thánh Kinh của Ki-Tô Giáo và tuyên bố là mình sai lầm. Nhưng có vẻ như ông là đệ tử của cụ Khổng nên có tư cách của người quân tử: "uy vũ bất năng khuất" nên ông không chịu "sửa sai". Kết quả là ông bị tòa án xử dị giáo xử có tội, tuyệt thông ông (nghĩa là khai trừ ông ra khỏi giáo hội, không cho ông hưởng các "bí tích" và lên Thiên đường hiệp thông cùng Chúa) và mang ông đi thiêu sống. (Xin đọc các bài “Phật Giáo và Vũ Trụ Học” và “Phật Giáo và Cuộc Cách Mạng Khoa Học” trong Phần II.) Từ những sự kiện trên, chúng ta thấy rằng, trí tuệ của Đức Phật đã vượt xa trí tuệ của Thiên Chúa của Ki-Tô Giáo, ít ra là về nguồn gốc và cấu trúc của vũ trụ. Bởi vậy, một trong 10 danh hiệu người đời gọi Đức Phật là "Thiên, Nhân Sư", nghĩa là bậc Thầy của những bậc sống trên Trời như Thần Ki-Tô và của con người sống trên trái đất.
Ngày nay, các khoa học gia đều công nhận chúng ta đang sống trong một vũ trụ sống động, thay đổi liên tục. Vũ trụ, cũng như mọi vật trong đó, từ nhỏ như một vi khuẩn cho tới lớn như một ngôi sao v..v.. đều có một đời sống, nghĩa là, được sinh ra và sẽ chết đi. Vấn đề sinh tử không còn xa lạ gì với con người, nhưng vấn đề các ngôi sao, và rất có thể cả vũ trụ, cũng sinh tử thì thực ra các khoa học gia mới chỉ biết tới cách đây khoảng chưa đầy 80 năm. Khoa học ngày nay đã thấy lại, sau cái thấy của Đức Phật gần 25 thế kỷ, về sự cấu tạo và tính cách vô thường của vũ trụ.
Cho tới đầu thập niên 1920, các nhà vũ trụ học (vũ trụ học là môn học khảo sát về nguồn gốc, sự tiến hóa và sự cấu tạo của vũ trụ) đều cho rằng vũ trụ chỉ là giải Ngân Hà mà Thái Dương Hệ (hệ thống mặt trời và các hành tinh trong đó có trái đất) của chúng ta nằm trong đó, và vũ trụ này có vẻ như vô cùng tận, thường hằng, nghĩa là không thay đổi và có tính cách vĩnh cửu (eternal). Vào đầu thập niên 1920, các chuyên gia khảo cứu vũ trụ, qua những kính thiên văn tân kỳ, khám phá ra rằng giải Ngân Hà (Milky Way), trong đó có thể có tới cả trăm tỷ ngôi sao, mỗi ngôi tương tự như mặt trời trong Thái Dương Hệ, thật ra chỉ là một ốc đảo, một Thiên Hà (galaxy), trong vũ trụ.
Ngoài giải Ngân Hà ra còn cả triệu, cả tỷ Thiên Hà khác rải rác trong vũ trụ. Mỗi Thiên Hà đều chứa ít ra là cả tỷ ngôi sao, tương tự như giải Ngân Hà. Trong vũ trụ, giải Ngân Hà có dạng của một cái đĩa, rộng khoảng 100000 (một trăm ngàn) năm ánh sáng, và Thái Dương Hệ của chúng ta ở cách tâm của giải Ngân Hà khoảng 30000 (ba mươi ngàn) năm ánh sáng. Trong vũ trụ học, vì phải kể đến những khoảng cách vô cùng lớn nên người ta thường dùng đơn vị đo chiều dài là 1 năm ánh sáng, hoặc đơn vị parsec bằng hơn ba năm ánh sáng một chút (3.2616). Chúng ta đều biết, ánh sáng truyền trong không gian với vận tốc khoảng 300000 cây số trong một giây đồng hồ. Chúng ta cũng biết một phút có 60 giây, một giờ có 60 phút, một ngày có 24 giờ, và một năm có khoảng 365 ngày. Do đó, chúng ta có thể tính ra khoảng cách của một năm ánh sáng. Khoảng cách này vào khoảng 9460800000000 (9 ngàn 4 trăm 60 tỷ 8 trăm triệu) cây số, hoặc gần 6000000000000 (6 ngàn tỷ) Miles.
Làm sao mà các khoa học gia có thể đo được những khoảng cách vô cùng lớn như vậy? Lẽ dĩ nhiên không phải đo bằng thước mà bằng một phương pháp gián tiếp qua những dụng cụ khoa học, và đây chính là sự kỳ diệu của những phát minh khoa học song hành với sự phát triển trí tuệ của con người.
Năm 1923, khi quan sát khối tinh vân (nebula) Andromeda, một khối trông như một đám bụi sáng mờ mà chúng ta có thể nhìn thấy bằng mắt trần, qua một kính thiên văn vĩ đại tân kỳ có đường kính khoảng hai thước rưỡi, Edwin Hubble nhận ra rằng đó không phải là một khối tinh vân mà chính là một thiên hà tương tự như giải ngân hà. Quan sát kỹ, Hubble nhận thấy trong thiên hà này có những ngôi sao mà độ sáng của nó thay đổi một cách đều đặn, nghĩa là hiện tượng ngôi sao mới đầu sáng, rồi mờ đi, rồi lại sáng trở lại, và cứ tiếp tục thay đổi đều đặn như vậy. Các ngôi sao thay đổi độ sáng này có tên khoa học là Cepheid (Cepheid variables) . Thời gian của một chu trình thay đổi này tùy thuộc ở độ sáng trung bình của ngôi sao. Chu trình thay đổi này có thể kéo dài trong khoảng từ 1 tới 50 ngày, tùy theo ngôi sao, nhưng rất đều đặn, thí dụ 15 ngày chẳng hạn, đối với một ngôi sao nào đó. Thời gian của chu trình này cho chúng ta biết chính xác độ sáng của ngôi sao đó. Và độ sáng biểu kiến (apparent brightness), nghĩa là thấy vậy mà không phải thực là vậy, của các ngôi sao ghi giữ lại trên các kính thiên văn sẽ cho chúng ta biết khoảng cách từ ngôi sao đến trái đất, vì theo một định luật đã được kiểm chứng trong khoa học, độ sáng biểu kiến chẳng qua chỉ là độ sáng thật chia cho bình phương của khoảng cách. Thí dụ, nếu chúng ta đo thấy độ sáng biểu kiến của ngôi sao A chỉ sáng bằng một phần tư độ sáng biểu kiến của ngôi sao B thì chúng ta có thể kết luận là ngôi sao A ở xa chúng ta gấp đôi ngôi sao B, vì bình phương của một nửa là một phần tư.
Qua kỹ thuật đo khoảng cách này, các khoa học gia biết rằng thiên hà Andromeda cách xa chúng ta khoảng hai triệu năm ánh sáng (700 ngàn parsec) và là thiên hà hàng xóm gần chúng ta nhất. Với những kính thiên văn ngày càng tân kỳ có khả năng ghi lại những ánh sáng rất yếu, từ rất xa, các khoa học gia đã biết được có những thiên hà cách xa chúng ta cả chục triệu năm ánh sáng, cả trăm triệu năm ánh sáng, rồi đến cả chục tỷ năm ánh sáng.
Các khoa học gia thường có thói xấu là "làm ngày không đủ, tranh thủ làm đêm, làm thêm ngày chủ nhật" và cứ lập đi lập lại một thí nghiệm để chắc rằng những dữ kiện khoa học phù hợp nhau, từ đó mới đưa ra những xác định khoa học. Tới năm 1929, Edwin Hubble nhận ra một hiện tượng kỳ lạ: có vẻ như các thiên hà càng ngày càng di chuyển ra xa chúng ta. Hiện tượng trên chính là căn bản thuyết lý của Big Bang. Để hiểu rõ vấn đề, có lẽ chúng ta cần đi thêm vào chút ít chi tiết.
Sở dĩ Edwin Hubble khám phá ra hiện tượng trên là vì, khi quan sát những quang phổ (spectrum) ánh sáng từ các thiên hà, ông thấy vị trí của toàn bộ quang phổ này thay đổi với thời gian. Chúng ta biết rằng, dùng một lăng kính (prism) chúng ta có thể phân ánh sáng trắng của mặt trời ra làm bảy màu khác nhau, tương tự như những màu ta nhìn thấy trên một cầu vồng sau một cơn mưa, đó là quang phổ của ánh sáng mặt trời. Tương tự, ánh sáng từ các thiên hà, khi đi qua một quang phổ kế (spectroscope), nghĩa là một tổ hợp của kính hiển vi (microscope) và lăng kính (prism), cũng cho chúng ta những quang phổ tương ứng. Quan sát kỹ những quang phổ này, chúng ta thấy ngoài những màu chính còn có những vạch sáng và tối xen kẽ. Không đi vào chi tiết, chúng ta có thể nói rằng, vị trí của những vạch này cho chúng ta biết những nguyên tố đã phát ra ánh sáng tạo thành quang phổ đó, vì với mỗi nguyên tố, vị trí của những vạch này cố định. Nhưng khi quan sát những quang phổ này, Hubble thấy chúng chuyển sang phía đỏ (redshift), điều này chứng tỏ các thiên hà tương ứng với những quang phổ chuyển sang phía đỏ trên đang di chuyển càng ngày càng xa chúng ta. Đây là kết quả của một hiện tượng trong khoa học gọi là Hiệu Ứng Doppler (Doppler Effect). Trước khi đi vào chi tiết của hiệu ứng này, chúng ta cần biết qua về cấu trúc của ánh sáng.
Về phương diện sinh lý, cặp mắt của con người quả thật vô cùng hạn hẹp. Chúng ta nhận biết được vật chất là vì có ánh sáng. Nhưng ánh sáng mà chúng ta nhìn thấy được chỉ là một phần rất nhỏ của các loại "ánh sáng" gọi chung là sóng điện từ (electromagnetic waves). Những sóng này vừa dao động (rung) vừa truyền trong không gian với một tốc độ rất nhanh, như chúng ta đã biết, khoảng 300000 cây số trong một giây đồng hồ. Số rung trong một giây đồng hồ được gọi là tần số rung của sóng. Các sóng này có thể rung tương đối chậm, có tần số khoảng một triệu lần (chu kỳ) trong một giây, đó là các sóng phát thanh ngắn (radio short waves), hoặc rung rất nhanh, khoảng một triệu tỷ tỷ chu kỳ trong một giây, đó là những tia quang tuyến X , tia Gamma. Khoảng cách sóng truyền đi trong không gian sau mỗi chu kỳ (một lần rung) gọi là độ dài sóng (wavelength). Độ dài sóng của các tia X, tia Gamma chỉ vào khoảng một-phần-triệu-tỷ mét, nghĩa là vô cùng nhỏ, ta có thể tạm coi là 0. Các sóng phát thanh ngắn có độ dài sóng vào khoảng 100 mét. Vậy nếu ta biểu diễn độ dài sóng của các loại ánh sáng trên một trục ngang, từ 0 tới 100 mét, nghĩa là trên một đoạn dài 100 mét, thì phạm vi ánh sáng mà chúng ta có thể nhìn thấy được bằng đôi mắt trần chỉ chưa tới một phần ngàn của một ly mét, hay là một phần triệu của một mét, trong khoảng từ 0,4 phần triệu của một mét (tương ứng với ánh sáng tím) tới 0,6 phần triệu của một mét (tương ứng với ánh sáng màu đỏ), một chấm nhỏ mà mắt con người không thể nào nhìn thấy được. Vâng, chỉ như vậy thôi, và các con số trên không lạ gì với các học sinh trung học.
Trở lại hiệu ứng Doppler, chúng ta chắc ai cũng có kinh nghiệm nghe tiếng còi của xe cứu thương hay xe cảnh sát thay đổi khi xe tiến lại gần, qua ta và rồi di chuyển ra xa. Tiếng còi nghe cao dần khi xe tiến lại gần ta và rồi trở thành trầm dần khi rời xa ta. Hiện tượng này chính là hiệu ứng Doppler, sóng âm thanh co lại hoặc dãn ra tùy theo âm thanh đó tiến lại gần ta hay rời xa ta. Vì sóng âm thanh di chuyển trong không gian với một vận tốc cố định nên âm thanh cao rung nhanh hơn và tương ứng với độ dài sóng ngắn hơn, và âm thanh trầm rung chậm hơn và tương ứng với độ dài sóng dài hơn. Sóng ánh sáng cũng vậy, truyền trong không gian với một vận tốc cố định. Cho nên khi quang phổ của ánh sáng, phát ra từ các thiên hà, chuyển sang phía đỏ, nghĩa là phía những sóng ánh sáng có độ dài sóng dài hơn, thì chúng ta có thể kết luận là các thiên hà đang di chuyển càng ngày càng xa chúng ta. Điều này có nghĩa là vũ trụ không phải là thường hằng, luôn luôn như vậy, không thay đổi, mà là đang nở rộng ra. Ngoài ra, Hubble cũng còn khám phá ra một định luật mang tên ông (Hubble's law): rằng vận tốc di chuyển ra xa của các thiên hà thì tỷ lệ với khoảng cách giữa thiên hà và trái đất. Thí dụ, một thiên hà A ở xa trái đất gấp đôi thiên hà B thì vận tốc di chuyển của thiên hà A sẽ nhanh gấp đôi vận tốc di chuyển của thiên hà B.
Vậy, nếu ngày nay chúng ta có bằng chứng khoa học rằng vũ trụ đang nở rộng thì đi ngược thời gian chúng ta có thể tưởng tượng rằng vũ trụ trước đây nhỏ hơn bây giờ, trong đó các thiên hà gần nhau hơn. Tiếp tục đi ngược thời gian, chúng ta có thể thấy rằng, một thời nào đó, các thiên hà phải rất gần nhau, chồng chất lên nhau, không còn khoảng không gian nào giữa các thiên hà hay vật chất trong vũ trụ. Luận cứ này đưa tới quan niệm về Big Bang: vũ trụ thành hình do một sự nổ bùng lớn của một dị điểm vô cùng đặc, vô cùng nóng (vì tất cả vật chất trong vũ trụ được ép lại thành một điểm). Nóng bao nhiêu độ và đặc như thế nào, các khoa học gia đã tính ra được nhiệt độ và tỉ trọng của dị điểm này, tôi sẽ đưa ra vài con số trong một đoạn sau.
Quan niệm về một Big Bang không hẳn là khó hiểu, vì chúng ta có những hình ảnh tương tự, thí dụ như một chiếc pháo bông nổ trên trời, một quả bom nổ văng ra những mảnh bom có thể rất xa và khắp mọi hướng v..v.. Chỉ có một điều khác biệt, pháo bông hay bom nổ xảy ra trong một khoảng không gian đã có sẵn, còn Big Bang là sự nổ bùng của một dị điểm cùng lúc tạo ra không gian và thời gian. Những khái niệm thông thường về thời gian và không gian mà chúng ta thường hiểu không áp dụng được trước khi Big Bang bùng nổ. Cho nên, câu hỏi: "vào thời điểm nào và dị điểm nằm ở đâu để mà bùng nổ?" hoàn toàn không có nghĩa, ít ra là đối với những khoa học gia..
Thật ra, sự nở rộng của vũ trụ đã được tiên đoán trong thuyết Tương Đối của nhà Vật Lý Học Albert Einstein. Những phương trình toán học trong thuyết Tương Đối suy rộng (General Theory of Relativity) của Einstein đã tiên đoán hiện tượng này. Nhưng vào thời điểm cuối thập niên 1910, quan niệm của các khoa học gia Tây Phương về một vũ trụ thường hằng, luôn luôn như vậy không thay đổi từ vô thỉ đến vô chung, một quan niệm mà thực chất là bác bỏ thuyết sáng tạo của Ki Tô Giáo, đã ăn sâu vào đầu óc của mọi người, kể cả Einstein. Cho nên, trong những phương trình toán học của thuyết Tương Đối, thay vì trình bày sự tiên đoán trên, Einstein đã cho vào các phương trình toán học của ông một hằng số vũ trụ (cosmic constant) để triệt tiêu sự nở rộng của vũ trụ. Về sau, Einstein công nhận đó là một sai lầm lớn nhất (biggest blunder) trong suốt cuộc đời phục vụ cho khoa học của ông. Tuy vậy, Einstein vẫn được cả thế giới tôn vinh là một khoa học gia vĩ đại nhất của thế kỷ 20.
Muốn hiểu tại sao thế giới lại tôn vinh Einstein như trên, có lẽ chúng ta cũng nên biết qua thuyết Tương Đối của Einstein và chỗ đứng của thuyết này trong thuyết Big Bang. Năm 1905, Einstein đưa ra thuyết tương đối hẹp (Special theory of Relativity) để giải thích bản chất của không gian và thời gian. Thuyết này, ngoài sự chứng minh tính chất tương đối của không gian và thới gian, còn cho chúng ta biết vận tốc của ánh sáng, thường được viết bằng ký hiệu c, là một vận tốc giới hạn, nghĩa là không có gì có thể di chuyển nhanh hơn ánh sáng, do đó vận tốc của ánh sáng là một hằng số tuyệt đối (absolute constant). Einstein cũng cho chúng ta biết sự tương quan giữa năng lượng (energy) và vật chất (matter) qua phương trình E = mc2, E là năng lượng tương ứng với khối lượng m của vật chất, và c là vận tốc của ánh sáng. Một điểm đặc biệt khác của thuyết tương đối hẹp của Einstein là thuyết này đã tổ hợp không gian và thời gian thành một miền chung có tên khoa học là miền liên tục khônggian - thờigian (spacetime continuum), được mô tả bởi một tập hợp các phương trình. Miền liên tục khônggian - thờigian này thành ra có 4 chiều, 3 chiều cho không gian và một chiều cho thời gian. Đầu óc của chúng ta đã quen với một không gian 3 chiều trong đó 3 trục ngang, dọc, và thẳng đứng thẳng góc với nhau, nên chúng ta khó có thể quan niệm một trục thứ tư, trục thời gian, thẳng góc với cả 3 trục trên. Nhưng những phương trình toán học trong thuyết tương đối hẹp của Einstein lại cho chúng ta "thấy" rõ rằng miền liên tục khônggian - thờigian đúng là như vậy, vì trong những phương trình này, chiều thứ tư, chiều thời gian, bằng cách nào đó lại dính đến những khoảng cách âm (negative distances), biểu thị bằng một dấu trừ trước thông số thời gian, ký hiệu là t, trong các phương trình. Không đi vào chi thiết phức tạp của các phương trình toán học, chúng ta có thể dùng một hình ảnh giản dị hơn để có một khái niệm về miền liên tục 4 chiều.
Chúng ta hãy tưởng tượng miền liên tục khônggian - thờigian này giống như một tờ cao su rộng, được căng thẳng như mặt trống chẳng hạn. Trên mặt tấm cao su này chúng ta hãy vẽ một trục biểu thị sự chuyển động trong không gian, và một trục thẳng góc với trục trên biểu thị sự chuyển động trong thời gian. Nói một cách toán học thì 3 chiều trong không gian đều tương đương như nhau, nên chúng ta có thể tưởng tượng một trục có thể tượng trưng cho cả 3. Bây giờ chúng ta hãy lăn một viên bi trên tấm cao su đó, chúng ta có hình ảnh của một vật chuyển động trong miền liên tục khônggian - thờigian.
Nhưng đây là sự chuyển động của một vật trong một mẫu khônggian - thờigian phẳng lì (flat spacetime), nghĩa là trong không gian và thời gian thuần túy. Thực tế là, trong vũ trụ không phải chỉ có không gian không, mà còn có hằng hà sa số các thiên hà như chúng ta đã biết. Do đó, Einstein đã để ra 10 năm để nghiên cứu, tìm cách đưa tác dụng của trọng trường, nghĩa là ảnh hưởng của vật chất, vào trong thuyết tương đối của ông. Ông đã thành công năm 1915 với kết quả là thuyết tương đối rộng (General theory of relativity), một thuyết có thể giải thích, mô tả sự tương quan giữa không gian, thời gian, và vật chất, nghĩa là vũ trụ.
Muốn hiểu ảnh hưởng của vật chất trong việc giải thích vũ trụ, chúng ta hãy lấy lại mẫu khônggian - thờigian phẳng lì trên, và trên tấm cao su căng thẳng chúng ta hãy đặt một khối nặng trên đó. Hiển nhiên là tấm cao su sẽ bị trũng xuống nơi chúng ta đặt khối nặng trên. Lăn một viên bi trên tấm cao su theo một đường thẳng qua gần khối nặng trên, viên bi không di chuyển theo đường thẳng mà lại quẹo vào gần chỗ trũng trên tấm cao su rồi tiếp tục di chuyển trên quỹ đạo đã bị uốn cong này. Điều này chứng tỏ khônggian - thờigian bị uốn cong và biến dạng bởi những vật nặng, thí dụ như mặt trời, trong đó, và quỹ đạo của bất cứ cái gì, kể cả ánh sáng, di chuyển qua và gần vật nặng đó cũng bị uốn cong trong cái vùng biến dạng của khônggian - thờigian. Hiện tượng này đã được kiểm chứng và đo được một cách khá chính xác. Ngay từ năm 1919, các nhà vũ trụ học đã có thể đo được mức độ uốn cong của ánh sáng khi đi qua gần mặt trời. Thuyết tương đối của Einstein đã tiên đoán rất đúng mức độ uốn cong này.
Sau sự khám phá của Hubble là vũ trụ đang nở rộng, các khoa học gia đã dùng lại những phương trình toán học của Einstein, bỏ đi cái hằng số vũ trụ mà Einstein cho vào để triệt tiêu sự nở rộng của vũ trụ. Kết quả là các phương trình này mô tả rất chính xác vũ trụ của chúng ta.
Thật ra thì người đầu tiên dùng những phương trình toán học trong thuyết tương đối của Einstein để đưa ra một thuyết về nguồn gốc của vũ trụ mà ngày nay chúng ta gọi là Big Bang là một linh mục người Bỉ tên là George Lemaitre. Nhưng Lemaitre chỉ dùng những phương trình này để tính ngược tới một thời điểm mà vũ trụ được thu gọn trong một trái cầu lớn hơn mặt trời khoảng 30 lần mà ông ta gọi là "nguyên tử đầu tiên" (primeval atom), còn được biết dưới danh từ "trứng vũ trụ" (cosmic egg). Theo Lemaitre thì, vì những lý do không rõ, trái trứng vũ trụ này nổ bùng tạo thành vũ trụ của chúng ta ngày nay. Nhưng các phương trình của Einstein lại cho phép chúng ta đi ngược thời gian xa hơn nữa, tới một thời điểm mà tất cả vũ trụ được thu gọn trong một điểm mà danh từ khoa học gọi là "dị điểm" (singularity), một thời điểm vào khoảng 0.0001 (một phần mười ngàn) của một giây đồng hồ (10-4 sec.) sau khi dị điểm bùng nổ, khi đó nhiệt độ của dị điểm là khoảng 1000000000000 (một ngàn tỷ) độ tuyệt đối (1012 oK), nhiệt độ tuyệt đối K cao hơn nhiệt độ bách phân C là 273.16 độ, do đó 0 độ K tương đương với -273.16 độ bách phân C, và tỷ trọng của dị điểm là 100000000000000 (một trăm ngàn tỷ) gram (1014 g) cho một phân khối. Để có môt ý niệm về các con số trên, nhiệt độ ngoài biên của mặt trời chỉ vào khoảng 6000 độ, và tỷ trọng của nước chỉ là 1 gram cho một phân khối. Một điểm quan trọng trong thuyết Big Bang mà chúng ta cần hiểu là: không phải dị điểm nổ bùng và nở rộng trong một không gian hay vũ trụ có sẵn, thí dụ như pháo bông nổ trên trời, mà là thời gian và không gian được gói ghém trong dị điểm, nghĩa là thời gian và không gian của vũ trụ ngày nay được sinh ra cùng với sự nổ bùng của dị điểm.
Sự kiện vũ trụ đang nở rộng đã là một sự kiện khoa học, không ai có thể phủ nhận. Nhưng sự kiện này có phải là "tiếng nói cuối cùng" của các khoa học gia về thuyết Big Bang hay không? Không hẳn, vì thuyết Big Bang lại đưa đến nhiều vấn đề khác cần phải kiểm chứng để cho thuyết này được công nhận.
Cũng vì vậy mà trong thập niên 1940, George Gamow đã từ thuyết Big Bang tiến thêm một bước và tiên đoán sự hiện hữu của một bức xạ nền (background radiation) trong vũ trụ. Gamow áp dụng môn vật lý nguyên lượng (quantum physics) vào việc khảo sát những sự tương tác hạt nhân (nuclear interactions) phải xảy ra trong quả cầu lửa khi Big Bang vừa mới nổ chưa được một giây đồng hồ. Khi đó, quả cầu lửa, do dị điểm nổ tung ra, gồm các hạt nhân của nguyên tử hydrogen, còn gọi là dương tử (proton), trung hòa tử (neutron), điện tử (electron), và các hạt khác. Gamow tính ra rằng vào khoảng 25% các hạt proton được biến cải thành hạt alpha, nhân của nguyên tử Helium, gồm 2 proton và 2 neutron, phù hợp với sự cấu tạo của các ngôi sao được thành lập khi vũ trụ mới thành hình, được ghi nhận trên các quang phổ ánh sáng của các ngôi sao này. Kết quả là quả cầu lửa vô cùng nóng này chứa đầy ánh sáng (bức xạ) có độ dài sóng ngắn dưới dạng tia X và tia Gamma. Gamow và nhóm nghiên cứu của ông kết luận là những bức xạ ban khai này của Big Bang, dù đã nguội đi rất nhiều qua mười mấy tỷ năm, nhưng vì không thể thất thoát đi đâu được, nên vẫn còn tồn tại đầy trong vũ trụ hiện nay, tạo thành một bức xạ nền, nghĩa là bức xạ có khắp mọi nơi trong vũ trụ. Đây chính là dấu tích của Big Bang để lại, nếu thực sự vũ trụ này sinh ra từ một Big Bang.
Muốn dễ hiểu chúng ta hãy tưởng tượng một quả bong bóng chứa đầy không khí. Khi quả bong bóng nở phồng ra thì không khí trong đó cũng loãng ra vì phải chiếm một thể tích lớn hơn. Tương tự, khi vũ trụ càng ngày càng nở rộng ra thì mật độ (density) của các bức xạ trên cũng phải càng ngày càng giảm đi. Nói cách khác, các bức xạ có độ dài sóng ngắn như tia X, tia Gamma cùng dãn ra với vũ trụ, do đó chuyển dần thành những bức xạ có độ dài sóng dài hơn. Sự khác biệt quan trọng nhất giữa những bức xạ có độ dài sóng ngắn và độ dài sóng dài là năng lượng kết hợp với bức xạ có độ dài sóng ngắn thì cao hơn là năng lượng kết hợp với bức xạ có độ dài sóng dài. Chúng ta đã biết, tia X có sức xuyên thấu cao, có thể làm nguy hại đến các tế bào trong cơ thể, trong khi ánh sáng thường trong bóng mát không có ảnh hưởng gì tới cơ thể. Khi vũ trụ nở rộng thì vì sự chuyển sang phía độ dài sóng dài của các bức xạ nền trong vũ trụ, và nếu chúng ta biết nhiệt độ ban khai của Big Bang và tuổi của vũ trụ thì chúng ta có thể tính ra nhiệt độ của bức xạ nền trong vũ trụ.
Năm 1948, hai sinh viên trong nhóm nghiên cứu của Gamow là Ralph Alpher và Robert Herman đã tính ra được nhiệt độ tương ứng với bức xạ nền này vào khoảng 500K, nghĩa là -268 độ Celsius hay nhiệt độ bách phân (dưới nhiệt độ 00 của nước đá 268 độ). Lẽ dĩ nhiên, kết quả này tùy thuộc nhiệt độ ban đầu của Big Bang và tuổi của vũ trụ, vì chúng ta có thể tính ra nhiệt độ của bức xạ nền hiện nay bằng cách lấy nhiệt độ ban khai của Big Bang chia cho căn số bậc hai của tuổi vũ trụ, tính bằng giây đồng hồ.
Sự tiên đoán lý thuyết của Gamow và nhóm nghiên cứu của ông về một bức xạ nền, dấu tích của Big Bang để lại, không được giới khoa học để ý đến nhiều, tuy cũng có vài nhóm nghiên cứu khác tính ra nhiệt độ của bức xạ nền là vào khoảng vài độ tuyệt đối. Một phần vì chưa có kỹ thuật đo nhiệt độ thấp (khoảng -2700 C) nên không thể kiểm chứng tiên đoán của Gamow, một phần vì thuyết Big Bang chưa có tính cách hoàn toàn thuyết phục. Mãi tới năm 1965, Arno Penzias và Robert Wilson ở trung tâm khảo cứu của hãng Bell (Bell Research Laboratories), thiết kế một cái ăng-ten lớn hình loa để dùng trong sự liên lạc viễn thông với các vệ tinh, ngẫu nhiên dò ra được một loại âm thanh vi sóng vô tuyến thuần nhất trong chín phương trời, mười phương Phật (microwave radio noise coming uniformly from all over the sky). Âm thanh này chính là bức xạ nền đã tiên đoán bởi Gamow trước đó hơn 20 năm. Thực nghiệm đã kiểm chứng lý thuyết, và điều này đã thuyết phục hầu hết các nhà vũ trụ học về quan niệm vũ trụ sinh ra từ một Big Bang. Penzias và Wilson được trao tặng giải Nobel vào năm 1978 về những khám phá tình cờ này. 20 năm tiếp theo sự khám phá của Penzias và Wilson, nhiều nhóm nghiên cứu trên thế giới đã đổ xô vào việc kiểm chứng sự hiện hữu của bức xạ nền, dấu tích của Big Bang để lại, và ngày nay, nhiệt độ của bức xạ nền được mọi người công nhận là 2.70K.
Tới đây, có lẽ chúng ta cho rằng câu chuyện Big Bang đã dứt khoát, không còn ai có thể nghi ngờ gì nữa về nguồn gốc của vũ trụ, trừ những người mê mẩn với thuyết sáng tạo (creationist). Không hẳn vậy, vì tới thập niên 1980, các nhà vũ trụ học không cảm thấy hoàn toàn hài lòng về những kết quả liên hệ tới một bức xạ nền trong vũ trụ. Sự hiện hữu của một bức xạ nền đã được kiểm chứng dứt khoát, nhưng vấn đề là nó nhuyễn quá (too smooth), nó đồng đều khắp mọi phương trong vũ trụ. Bất kể đo từ hướng nào nó cũng như nhau, thuần nhất (uniform). Điều này làm cho các nhà vũ trụ học bối rối. Vì, nếu trong vũ trụ nở rộng này chỉ có toàn là bức xạ thì sự thuần nhất của bức xạ nền không thành vấn đề. Nhưng chúng ta đã biết, trong vũ trụ có cả tỷ thiên hà, và mỗi thiên hà có đến cả tỷ ngôi sao, nghĩa là trong vũ trụ có những lượng vật chất rất lớn. Theo các nhà vũ trụ học thì sự hiện hữu của những khối lượng vật chất lớn, vô cùng lớn, trong vũ trụ sẽ tạo ra những vân (ripples) trong bức xạ nền, nghĩa là bức xạ nền không thể nào quá nhuyễn mà phải không đồng đều, dù sự sai biệt này vô cùng nhỏ. Điều này sẽ gây nên những vân trong bức xạ nền, nghĩa là bức xạ nền không thể quá nhuyễn như những kết quả đo lường đã chứng tỏ. Đây chính là mắt xích cuối cùng trong việc xác định thuyết Big Bang, không kiếm được cái mắt xích này, thuyết Big Bang không có căn bản vững chắc. Các khoa học gia đã hầu như thất vọng vì kỹ thuật trong đầu thập niên 1990 không thể kiểm chứng được sự hiện hữu của các vân trong bức xạ nền. Nhưng vào tháng 4 năm 1992, vệ tinh COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) của cơ quan thám hiểm không gian Hoa Kỳ (NASA) đã dò ra được những vân trong bức xạ nền với những sai biệt đúng như sự tiên đoán của các khoa học gia. Thuyết Big Bang không còn là một thuyết nữa mà trở thành một sự kiện khoa học (scientific fact) và cả thế giới đều công nhận sự kiện này về nguồn gốc của vũ trụ.
Muốn hiểu tường tận thuyết Big Bang qua những bằng chứng toán học và vật lý thì có vẻ khó, nhưng muốn "thấy" Big Bang thì không phải là chuyện khó khăn. Chúng ta chỉ cần mở TV, vặn vào một đài số không có trong chương trình TV, chúng ta sẽ nghe thấy tiếng xào xạo và thấy ánh sáng nhấp nháy trên màn huỳnh quang. 1% của loại tiếng ồn và ánh sáng nhấp nháy này là từ bức xạ nền, dấu tích của Big Bang để lại trong khắp vũ trụ từ hơn 15 tỷ năm nay.
Một mặt khác, những đêm trời quang, mưa tạnh, chúng ta chỉ cần nhìn lên những khoảng tối giữa các vị sao trên trời là có thể thấy ngay Big Bang trên đó. Không đi vào chi tiết, chúng ta đã biết, cho tới thập niên 1920, quan niệm về vũ trụ là một vũ trụ thường hằng, vô cùng tận, luôn luôn như vậy với hàng tỷ tỷ ngôi sao khắp mọi nơi. Theo quan niệm này thì ban đêm trời phải sáng vì nhìn theo bất cứ hướng nào trong vũ trụ ta cũng thấy một vị sao. Cho nên câu hỏi "tại sao ban đêm trời lại tối" mà Olbers đưa ra như một nghịch lý (Olbers' paradox) trong thế kỷ 19, đã là mối thắc mắc của các khoa học gia và triết gia trong nhiều thế kỷ. Lẽ dĩ nhiên, đối với những người thường như chúng ta thì khi được hỏi: "Anh nhỉ, tại sao ban đêm trời lại tối?", câu trả lời rất có thể là: "À, trời tối để anh có thể nhìn thấy ánh mắt em lấp lánh như sao trên trời." Nhưng các khoa học gia có vẻ như không thỏa mãn với câu trả lời đầy vẻ thơ mộng trên, cho nên vẫn tìm cách giải thích câu hỏi “Tại sao ban đêm trời lại tối?”
Mãi khi thuyết Big Bang ra đời, các khoa học gia mới giải thích được nghịch lý này: Vì vũ trụ luôn luôn nở rộng làm cho ánh sáng từ các ngôi sao chuyển sang phía đỏ, vì vũ trụ mới sinh ra từ một Big Bang cách đây khoảng 15 tỷ năm nên chưa đủ thời gian để cho ánh sáng từ các thiên hà xa hơn nữa, nếu có, truyền tới mặt đất, và vì các ngôi sao không phải là cứ sống mãi mãi, trước sau gì cũng phải chết đi như vạn pháp trong vũ trụ.
Trên đây là tóm tắt câu chuyện “Big Bang”, nguồn gốc của vũ trụ mà ngày nay không còn ai có thể phủ nhận trừ những người có đầu óc tương đương với đầu óc của những người thuộc thời Trung Cổ ở Âu Châu, cần được chăn dắt, bảo sao nghe vậy.
Thật vậy, ngày 30 tháng 4, 2001, báo Chicago tribune loan tin “Những nhà thiên văn của đại học Chicago đã phổ biến những kết quả đo lường chi tiết về những vân trong bức xạ nền (background radiation) còn lại từ khi vũ trụ sinh ra từ một Big Bang.” (University of Chicago astronomers on Sunday released finely detailed measurements of radiation from the birth of the universe, capturing an unprecedented snapshot of acoustic waves rippling from the cataclysm of Big Bang). Những kết quả này đã kiểm chứng bằng chứng là vũ trụ đã sinh ra từ một Big Bang (Evidence of cosmic explosive growth)
Và ngày 12 tháng 2, 2003, báo chí cũng như các đài TV Mỹ đã loan tin là cơ quan thám hiểm không gian Hoa Kỳ (NASA) đã đưa ra những hình ảnh chụp bởi vệ tinh Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP), được phóng lên không gian vào tháng 6, 2001, lên xa trái đất 1 triệu 6 trăm ngàn cây số (1.6 MKm), về một vũ trụ ở thời điểm vài ngàn năm sau Big Bang, 200 triệu năm sau, và 13,7 tỷ năm sau. Những hình ảnh này đưa đến sự định tuổi chính xác nhất của vũ trụ là 13,7 tỷ năm và thời gian này chiếm nửa đời sống của vũ trụ, nghĩa là vũ trụ này chỉ còn tồn tại khoảng 14 tỷ năm nũa thôi. (Universe: Data reveal birth, life, eventual end [The remarkable portraits capturing the afterglow of the Big Bang – called the cosmic microwave background – were released by NASA on Tuesday. They provide the most accurate dating of the universe’s birth – 13.7 billion years ago – and suggest that it is now going through a midlife crisis])
http://www.sachhiem.net/TCN/TCNkh/TCNkh00.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)