Big Think Interview With Stanley Alpert
Stanley Alpert is a former federal prosecutor and the author of "The Birthday Party," a memoir about how he survived being kidnapped on his 38th birthday. Alpert spent 25 hours held hostage by men who offered him drugs and threatened to kill his father, but he eventually convinced them to release him. Using clues he had memorized while captive, Alpert then lead FBI and NYPD agents to his kidnappers within mere hours. Alpert is also an environmental lawyer and a former federal prosecutor.
Big Think's interview with Alpert, in which he recounts his experience and gives advice about how to survive a kidnapping, is part of our Ultimate Survivor Stories series.
Question: What is your survival story?
Stanley Alpert: It was January, 1998. I was walking home through the streets of Manhattan. As I reached the corner of 10th Street and Fifth Avenue, suddenly from out of nowhere, I felt a tug on my elbow. I spun around and there was an automatic machine gun sticking in my gut. Two men behind me: “Move, move, get in the car!” And they shoved me out into the street and forced me into a waiting new Lexus sedan. In the car there was a third man; he stuck a pistol in my face. They took me to a cash machine. They told me if I didn’t cooperate with them, give them my numbers—full cooperation—they would kill me.
When they saw that I had significant money in savings, they decided to keep me. They drove me to an apartment in Brooklyn where they repeated threatened to kill me. They told me they could pull the trigger and blow my brains out if they chose to. They also said that if I didn’t cooperate with them in the morning by going with them to the bank and helping them get my savings, that they would go to my father’s apartment and murder him by breaking every bone in his body.
And it’s a 25-hour ordeal that I went through. Much of it frightening, some of it actually funny because you can’t keep up that level of threat forever and they started relaxing later on and sort of bringing me into their world. They smoked marijuana, and then they had... and this was actually in addition to being a robbery and a kidnapping ring, it was a prostitution ring. So the prostitutes came back to the place. And I was blindfolded, but I could hear that the perpetrators were having sexual relations with the prostitutes and also smoked marijuana.
And then when they were relaxed, they decided to toy with me. Sort of see what they had brought home. So they asked me what I would be doing right then if they hadn’t kidnapped me. And I said, "well actually it’s my birthday"—hence the name, "The Birthday Party"—"It’s my birthday and actually I’d be meeting my friends later tonight to celebrate. And they thought that was the funniest thing they’d ever heard. And they decided to offer me marijuana, which I politely declined since I was a Federal prosecutor at the time. And then they offered me sexual relations with the girls, which today everyone thinks sound very funny, but he very fact is, in that moment, that was one of the more threatening things they could do because I couldn’t afford to be violated that way, and at the same time, I couldn’t afford to offend them. And so I had to be very careful in the way that I refused it.
So, the atmosphere, it was a macabre comedy. At times absolutely frightening, at other times humorous. And ultimately over a period of 25 hours, I was able to build a positive relationship with my tormentors. And I think that was a large part of why they decided not to kill me. Another part of why they decided not to kill me was because they realized I was a Federal prosecutor and while they were not particularly scared, as they said, by "New York City’s Police,” they were, but not particularly so. They were more afraid of what the FBI might do to them. I think they realized they grabbed a hot potato and at the end of it, they decided to release me. They drove me to Prospect Park in Brooklyn where they let me go.
Question: How did you help lead the FBI to your captors?
Stanley Alpert: My friends had been planning to meet me at The Bottom Line to go to a concert and I didn’t show up and they were very alarmed. And after quite some time, they ended up going to my apartment and having the super break in. They saw I wasn’t there. There were two bone-chilling messages on my answering machine. One was from a woman who had found my credit cards on the street in Bedford-Stuyvesant earlier that day; remember, we are now 25 hours after I was grabbed. Another was from the bank saying, “Mr. Alpert, there’s been unusual activity on your cash machine card.”
So my friends sort of analyzed it and some of them were Federal prosecutors. And they determined that in all likelihood I was dead, at best perhaps I was sitting in a hospital in a coma somewhere. And they first called the police and they thought about it a little more and they said, "Well a missing assistant U.S. attorney, we should really call the FBI."
So my apartment had become a crime scene. Now, I was released in Prospect Park. I ran up to a pizza place in Park Slope where after some considerable prodding, I managed to convince the cold-hearted guy behind the counter to let me use his phone, upon which I called my father to see if he was okay because he had been threatened. They said they would kill him. And he told me to call my apartment because that was where the FBI and the NYPD and my friends were stationed, sort of looking for me; which I did.
They came to pick me up in Park Slope. That night, they spent many hours interrogating me, learning the full story once and then taking me through it again in a question and answer form. And I didn’t know it at the time, but I found out much later that after they heard the story, they actually went outside and said, “That story is the biggest pile of crap we ever heard” because it didn’t add up for them. Who gets kidnapped on his birthday, offered sexual favors, offered marijuana, almost a party that went on in the room, and who walks out alive? It’s very unusual.
So they didn’t believe me at first, but they still investigated and the following morning, a massive manhunt of 120 FBI agents and NYPD detectives began. They quickly found that my details added up. For example, I explained to them that prior to being kidnapped, I’d met a young woman on the train and I walked with her to 6th Avenue and we bought chocolate chip cookies together. And they actually went to the supermarket and the manager remembered us and actually pulled out the receipt for the cookies. And it was those small details that convinced the agents of the FBI and the New York City detectives that actually the story was true.
And I was a witness like they hadn’t seen before because it’s a pretty dumb idea to kidnap a Federal prosecutor. And so the entire time that I was in captivity, I was trying to stay active... both so I could catch them and also just as some feeling of control in my situation. And there were so many clues that within 48 hours with this massive team of FBI and NYPD, they rounded up the perpetrators and put them in prison.
Question: What skills or strategies did you employ to survive this ordeal?
Stanley Alpert: All the experts—by that I mean the NYPD and the FBI—agree: I should be dead. And some how I managed to get through this horrendous experience. First of all, I stayed very calm. I stopped, I thought, I listened. I didn’t do anything without calculating the power and the import of my words. For example, “Stanley, it’s your birthday. Wow! You deserve something nice for your birthday. How about a sexual favor for your birthday?” Obviously, they didn’t use those words, but I won’t say them on camera here. And going slow and being calm and thinking about it, I realized that if I said no, that might be very offensive. Why doesn’t this lawyer think that our girls are good enough for him? So I was very careful to answer in a way to not offend. So I said, “Well, I’m sure the girls are lovely, but considering my circumstances, I’d really rather not. I made it seem light, yet was very respectful.
And actually many hours later I had the opposite problem because they were smoking marijuana, they were in a good mood, and I’m blindfolded with my own scarf covering most of my face. And one of the men said, “Well, these, you know, Stanley, I think these girls are starting to like you, they’re looking at your lips.” And that gave me the opposite problem because if we went down that path and their girlfriends liked me, they could get angry at me for the fact that their girlfriends liked me. So I had to deflect me in the opposite fashion. And in that instance I used humor, which I think you have to use very carefully in these situations. But humor is another thing in the arsenal of a hostage, but only to be used sparingly and with great care. And I said, “Really? The only reason these girls like me is because most of my face is covered.” And they thought that was hysterical. And they burst out laughing.
Now, the fact is, if you use humor the wrong way, it can twist against you. For example, there was a point at which they, again, they are high on weed, they’ve had sex with the girls, this was the second time around—I was there for 25 hours, and they—one of them started imitating a Jamaican accent. Well, I’m very good at doing all sorts of different accents. And I pondered very carefully whether to go with it and to go where they were. And I made a decision to do it, so I imitated my Jamaican accent for them and they loved that. It was hysterical to them. The thought that this polished, pressed, Caucasian attorney could be imitating a Jamaican accent was hysterical to them. But then they were talking about a store that was owned by Indians. And I thought well, should I do another kind of accent just to have some fun and keep things light and I said, no, let me stop because I didn’t know... as long as I was doing an accent that they were doing, I thought okay, that’s far enough. But don’t take it any further. You just don’t know when they might twist against you.
So I think survival skills. Stay very calm. Think, listen, observe. Understand your circumstances. Also, give up your ego. Give up who you were. I was a Federal prosecutor; in that position I had considerable power. In this position I was in, I had no power at all except the power of my wits, which I tried to get by with. But understand that you’re no longer who you were in the situation and adjust to that. So that’s another principle I would say for survival is to be very flexible. You know? Get in the car, guns pointing at me, you know, if I was inflexible I might have started yelling, fighting... All the detectives I spoke to say, “Listen, you can’t second guess yourself Stanley because you managed to survive.” And I think because I was flexible, I was able to go with the situation. That helped me a lot.
Another thing you need to do is feel some sense of empowerment. I mean, let’s look at my thing. How much control did I have? I had seven people with automatic weapons on me who could have killed me at any moment—and who might have killed me at any moment. And I have no doubt in my mind, nor does the NYPD or the FBI, that they were perfectly capable of doing it. Yet there were certain things where I felt I needed to keep control.
For example, when I first went in, they invited me to take off my shoes. I said—they put me down on a mattress, they took off my trench coat, I kept my sport jacket on, but they invited me to take off my shoes. And you know what I thought? In my head I thought, a guy with his shoes off isn’t walking out. A very powerful symbolism. So, I said, “No thanks, I’ll leave them on.” Because in my mind and I think in the psychology of the room, a man with his shoes on could walk out; a man with his shoes off might not get the chance to walk out. Or, for example, there was the point in time I purposely didn’t ask to go to the bathroom. I didn’t want to ask for anything that wasn’t offered to me, but they eventually asked me if I needed to use the bathroom. I said, “Yes.” And as soon as I said, “Yes” and sort of military alert cocking the guns, pointing them at me. In other words, they were nervous that on the way to the bathroom I may pull something.
So, again there, I felt the need to maintain some control even though they’ve got the guns, they’re in control. Still I wanted some small bit and I stopped. And I said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa.” I didn’t even get up. I said, “Whoa. Hang on a second. Relax; I’m not going to do anything. All I’m gonna do is go to the bathroom.” And they calmed down and then we went to the bathroom. And I didn’t get shot.
Another example of me getting some control was when I first got in there, they kept calling me “Steven.” And I kept saying, “My name's not Steven, its Stanley.” And they thought this was really funny. “Oh, sorry Stanley. Steven’s the guy we did this to the other night.” And it turns out later they’d actually taken him to the bank, not to the apartment, gotten his money and then left him in the backseat of his own car.
I felt that it was very important not to be called “Steven.” I felt that it was important to be called by my correct name—my name’s Stanley—because my identity was my life. If I’m a real person with a real name, then you’re less likely to kill me, and so I maintained that bit of control. I think that’s also... to feel a sense of some empowerment. And if you read the studies of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, what they say is that people get Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because they felt a complete disempowerment. They felt a complete lack of control. I was in a situation that was out of my control for the most part, but where I could find, I used it. And also, I gathered clues the whole time. So that to me, although purely psychological, was a form of control for me to have. So I think all those things helped me survive.
Question: Is it important to humanize yourself to your kidnappers?
Stanley Alpert: I think that to survive a hostage situation, it’s very important that you humanize yourself. That your captors view you not merely as a target, not merely as some stray lawyer with too much money, in their view, that they picked up off the street. Of course, I was an assistant U.S. attorney at the time. I wasn’t making as much money as they thought. But rather to view you as a person that was a human being, which is a strong incentive for them to keep you alive.
So I tried to do that. Right away when I was in the car with them, they asked me whether my watch was gold. And on instinct I said, you know, “I don’t know particularly, but my father gave it to me for graduating from law school.” I wanted them to realize that I’m a human being with a father. Turns out that actually backfired on me because they later threatened to kill him. Maybe I planted that idea in their heads. But I had a real feeling that they ought to know that.
I also tried the good-guy-lawyer thing. You know, I’m an environmental lawyer, who at the time was an environmental prosecutor. I ran in our district and I felt like, if I told them I was a good guy lawyer: I’m doing good things. I’m trying to help save the planet, I’m try—I mean, I didn’t use those words, but those ideas that they might be less likely to kill me and actually that backfired too. Because one of the toughest thugs, who went by the name of Sen said that was ridiculous. Why would I be suing ExxonMobil to get money out of them that goes to the Federal government when that money belongs here in our community, which was his point of view. So that too didn’t work, but it was another effort to try to humanize myself.
Now, another way to do it was to be very nice and kind no matter how they talked to me. Another way to do it was sort of midway through this, they decided to toy with me and get a little free legal advice. So they asked me actually some very serious legal questions. One of them was about how one of the guys had been, what he claimed, falsely arrested and he wanted to know if he could bring a lawsuit even though he had given a false name to the police. Now you can imagine a Federal prosecutor is not in a position to assist somebody who has given a false name to the police. But I was struggling for my life. So I asked a lot of questions, found out the facts and then I gave him a legal theory by which he might be able to win. I said, “Well,” you know, “You could say the reason you gave the false name was that you felt frightened by the police themselves because they had falsely arrested you.” Now I give you this, this is definitely not one of my prouder moments. And as a Federal prosecutor, I would never try to manipulate something in that way, but here I was just trying to hold onto my life.
By giving them positive legal advice, a positive theory that they could feel good about, that was a bonding experience. And you need to humanize yourself and bond with your captors in order to enhance your chance of surviving.
Question: Should you ever try to deceive your captors?
Stanley Alpert: So for the most part, you’re in the experience, I was as kind and friendly and responsive. I tried to be a good listener. You know, one guy was complaining about how his father wasn’t nice to his... you know, his father wasn’t nice to his mother. I tried to be very decent and kind. And I was honest most of the time. But in the art of survival, which in my case was also the art of war, there are times when it’s critical that you use a weapon that all fighters use, which is to deceive the enemy.
So toward the very end, right before they were planning to take me back, or said they were planning to take me back, the leader of the gang turns to me and says: “Stanley, if you had to chance to put me away for life, would you do it?” So what do you say? If you say yes, you’re dead. If you say no, you’re dead. I mean how stupid are they? So, I needed to give an answer that was a little more nuanced and obviously I couldn’t tell the truth. Because the fact is, putting my own experience aside, I couldn’t possibly let them do this to any other human being again. I couldn’t live with that on my conscience if I didn’t try to get them. So I thought about it and I said, “Look, you already told me you know where I live. You know where my father lives. I don’t know who you are; I don’t know where we are. You haven’t hurt me so far, and you say you’re gonna release me unharmed. I don’t think this has to go any further.” And in giving that answer I was deceiving my enemy, which was critical in that moment. I couldn’t tell the straight truth, yeah, I’m a Federal prosecutor, of course as soon as I get out of her I’m gonna get the FBI on your ass and get you locked up. I couldn’t do that. So there are times when you have to deceive the enemy and that’s what I did.
Question: Do you still struggle with the trauma of your kidnapping?
Stanley Alpert: So my physical survival was done 25 hours after they picked me up. My psychological survival was at another level. As I mentioned before, people with PTSD tend to feel a complete lack of control, and it’s very painful. I mean, when you think about it, especially for a man. Okay, men have this sense that somehow they’re supposed to be Rambo, they’re supposed to be able to blast their way out of any situation. That’s sort of a subliminal message that we’re taught.
I didn’t have much control while I was in there except for the psychological games that I could play, the effort to influence them and what they were doing, and also gathering clues. So I had, as much as I could. Once I got out, my control went through the roof because suddenly I had a very big, tough gang on my side. I had 120 very smart, very tough, NYPD detectives plus FBI agents all working to solve this crime. And they will tell you that they do it because they actually care about the victims. They actually care about the person that it happened to and they actually care about making sure it doesn’t happen to somebody else. They were out in a sweep across the city. That was very empowering.
Another thing that helped me psychologically in the aftermath was I was surrounded by friends and colleagues. And after all, if you’re at the U.S. Attorney’s office, there’s a certain power in that. And all these dozens of people from the U.S. Attorney’s in Brooklyn to the Department of Justice in Washington were calling me, were offering me help, were telling me how much they were happy that I survived. That was helpful too. In order words, a sense of community is very powerful, psychologically. So I had power on my side in seeking the people who did this to me, plus a wonderful sense of community around me. So that was very helpful to me in terms of easing the pain and getting past it.
And another thing that was really good and really helpful was: how do you take a bad situation and turn it positive? Well, I had been tortured psychologically for 25 hours. I had been threatened repeatedly with death; they threatened to murder my father. This was hideous. But the question in life is not: "Why do bad things happen to good people?"—although that’s a very important question. The real question is: "When bad things happen to good people, what do you do with it? How you transform it?" Because something bad is going to happen to all of us. We know that. It just is the way of life. The question is, how do you adapt? Remember, I said be flexible earlier, and turn it into something positive.
So I decided to dedicate the energy from this negative experience to writing a book. So I wrote "The Birthday Party, a Memoir of Survival," to memorialize these events; to purge them, which was very successful in doing; and also to give my thanks and credit to these wonderful officers of law enforcement who really... they didn’t save me physically, what they did was they saved me psychologically because by rounding up the criminals within 48 hours after I’d gone, that gave me peace. I could walk the street and know that these guys weren’t out there doing it to someone else. I think that if that hadn’t happened, if I’d either been harmed physically or if the perpetrators hadn’t been caught and really given their just due. I don’t think I’d be sitting here talking about my survival story. I think I’d be in a very different place.
So, I think that my physical survival ended 25 hours later and my spiritual and psychological survival continued through this wonderful empowerment and also purposeful focus that I could take the experience and I could do something positive with.
Recorded August 9, 2010
Interviewed by Max Miller
A conversation with the writer and kidnapping survivor.
Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
These Roman Emperors were infamous for their debauchery and cruelty.
- Roman Emperors were known for their excesses and violent behavior.
- From Caligula to Elagabalus, the emperors exercised total power in the service of their often-strange desires.
- Most of these emperors met violent ends themselves.
We rightfully complain about many of our politicians and leaders today, but historically speaking, humanity has seen much worse. Arguably no set of rulers has been as debauched, ingenious in their cruelty, and prone to excess as the Roman Emperors.
While this list is certainly not exhaustive, here are seven Roman rulers who were perhaps the worst of the worst in what was one of the largest empires that ever existed, lasting for over a thousand years.
Officially known as Gaius (Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus), Caligula was the third Roman Emperor, ruling from 37 to 41 AD. He acquired the nickname "Caligula" (meaning "little [soldier's] boot") from his father's soldiers during a campaign.
While recognized for some positive measures in the early days of his rule, he became famous throughout the ages as an absolutely insane emperor, who killed anyone when it pleased him, spent exorbitantly, was obsessed with perverse sex, and proclaimed himself to be a living god.
Caligula gives his horse Incitatus a drink during a banquet. Credit: An engraving by Persichini from a drawing by Pinelli, from "The History of the Roman Emperors" from Augustus to Constantine, by Jean Baptiste Louis Crevier. 1836.
Among his litany of misdeeds, according to the accounts of Caligula's contemporaries Philo of Alexandria and Seneca the Younger, he slept with whomever he wanted, brazenly taking other men's wives (even on their wedding nights) and publicly talking about it.
He also had an insatiable blood thirst, killing for mere amusement. Once, as reports historian Suetonius, when the bridge across the sea at Puteoli was being blessed, he had a number of spectators who were there to inspect it thrown off into the water. When some tried to cling to the ships' rudders, Caligula had them dislodged with hooks and oars so they would drown. On another occasion, he got so bored that he had his guards throw a whole section of the audience into the arena during the intermission so they would be eaten by wild beasts. He also allegedly executed two consuls who forgot his birthday.
Suetonius relayed further atrocities of the mad emperor's character, writing that Caligula "frequently had trials by torture held in his presence while he was eating or otherwise enjoying himself; and kept an expert headsman in readiness to decapitate the prisoners brought in from gaol." One particular form of torture associated with Caligula involved having people sawed in half.
He caused mass starvation and purposefully wasted money and resources, like making his troops stage fake battles just for theater. If that wasn't enough, he turned his palace into a brothel and was accused of incest with his sisters, Agrippina the Younger, Drusilla, and Livilla, whom he also prostituted to other men. Perhaps most famously, he was planning to appoint his favorite horse Incitatus a consul and went as far as making the horse into a priest.
In early 41 AD, Caligula was assassinated by a conspiracy of Praetorian Guard officers, senators, and other members of the court.
Fully named Nero Claudius Caesar, Nero ruled from 54 to 68 AD and was arguably an even worse madman than his uncle Caligula. He had his step-brother Britannicus killed, his wife Octavia executed, and his mother Agrippina stabbed and murdered. He personally kicked to death his lover Poppeaea while she was pregnant with his child — a horrific action the Roman historian Tacitus depicted as "a casual outburst of rage."
He spent exorbitantly and built a 100-foot-tall bronze statue of himself called the Colossus Neronis.
He is also remembered for being strangely obsessed with music. He sang and played the lyre, although it's not likely he really fiddled as Rome burned in what is a popular myth about this crazed tyrant. As misplaced retribution for the fire which burned down a sizable portion of Rome in the year 64, he executed scores of early Christians, some of them outfitted in animal skins and brutalized by dogs, with others burned at the stake.
He died by suicide.
Roman Emperor Nero in the burning ruins of Rome. July 64 AD.Credit: From an original painting by S.J. Ferris. (Photo by Kean Collection / Getty Images)
Like some of his counterparts, Commodus (a.k.a. Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus) thought he was a god — in his case, a reincarnation of the Greek demigod Hercules. Ruling from 176 to 192 AD, he was also known for his debauched ways and strange stunts that seemed designed to affirm his divine status. Numerous statues around the empire showed him as Hercules, a warrior who fought both men and beasts. He fought hundreds of exotic animals in an arena like a gladiator, confusing and terrifying his subjects. Once, he killed 100 lions in a single day.
Emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) questions the loyalty of his sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) In Dreamworks Pictures' and Universal Pictures' Oscar-winning drama "Gladiator," directed by Ridley Scott.Credit: Photo By Getty Images
The burning desire to kill living creatures as a gladiator for the New Year's Day celebrations in 193 AD brought about his demise. After Commodus shot hundreds of animals with arrows and javelins every morning as part of the Plebeian Games leading up to New Year's, his fitness coach (aptly named Narcissus), choked the emperor to death in his bath.
Officially named Marcus Aurelius Antoninus II, Elagabalus's nickname comes from his priesthood in the cult of the Syrian god Elagabal. Ruling as emperor from 218 to 222 AD, he was so devoted to the cult, which he tried to spread in Rome, that he had himself circumcised to prove his dedication. He further offended the religious sensitivities of his compatriots by essentially replacing the main Roman god Jupiter with Elagabal as the chief deity. In another nod to his convictions, he installed on Palatine Hill a cone-like fetish made of black stone as a symbol of the Syrian sun god Sol Invictus Elagabalus.
His sexual proclivities were also not well received at the time. He was likely transgender (wearing makeup and wigs), had five marriages, and was quite open about his male lovers. According to the Roman historian (and the emperor's contemporary) Cassius Dio, Elagabalus prostituted himself in brothels and taverns and was one of the first historical figures on record to be looking for sex reassignment surgery.
He was eventually murdered in 222 in an assassination plot engineered by his own grandmother Julia Maesa.
Emperor for just eight months, from April 19th to December 20th of the year 69 AD, Vitellius made some key administrative contributions to the empire but is ultimately remembered as a cruel glutton. He was described by Suetonius as overly fond of eating and drinking, to the point where he would eat at banquets four times a day while sending out the Roman navy to get him rare foods. He also had little social grace, inviting himself over to the houses of different noblemen to eat at their banquets, too.
Vitellius dragged through the streets of Rome.Credit: Georges Rochegrosse. 1883.
He was also quite vicious and reportedly either had his own mother starved to death or approved a poison with which she committed suicide.
Vitellius was ultimately murdered in brutal fashion by supporters of the rival emperor Vespasian, who dragged him through Rome's streets, then likely beheaded him and threw his body into the Tiber river. "Yet I was once your emperor," were supposedly his last words, wrote historian Cassius Dio.
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus I ruled Rome from 211 to 217 AD on his own (while previously co-ruling with his father Septimius Severus from 198). "Caracalla"' was his nickname, referencing a hooded coat from Gaul that he brought into Roman fashion.
He started off his rise to individual power by murdering his younger brother Geta, who was named co-heir by their father. Caracalla's bloodthirsty tyranny didn't stop there. He wiped out Geta's supporters and was known to execute any opponents to his or Roman rule. For instance, he slaughtered up to 20,000 citizens of Alexandria after a local theatrical satire dared to mock him.
Geta Dying in His Mother's Arms.Credit: Jacques Pajou (1766-1828)
One of the positive outcomes of his rule was the Edict of Caracalla, which gave Roman citizenship to all free men in the empire. He was also known for building gigantic baths.
Like others on this list, Caracalla met a brutal end, being assassinated by army officers, including the Praetorian prefect Opellius Macrinus, who installed himself as the next emperor.
As the second emperor, Tiberius (ruling from 42 BC to 16 AD) is known for a number of accomplishments, especially his military exploits. He was one of the Roman Empire's most successful generals, conquering Pannonia, Dalmatia, Raetia, and parts of Germania.
He was also remembered by his contemporaries as a rather sullen, perverse, and angry man. In the chapter on his life from The Lives of the Twelve Caesars by the historian Suetonius, Tiberius is said to have been disliked from an early age for his personality by even his family. Suetonius wrote that his mother Antonia often called him "an abortion of a man, that had been only begun, but never finished, by nature."
"Orgy of the Times of Tiberius on Capri".Painting by Henryk Siemiradzki. 1881.
Suetonius also paints a damning picture of Tiberius after he retreated from public life to the island of Capri. His years on the island would put Jeffrey Epstein to shame. A horrendous pedophile, Tiberius had a reputation for "depravities that one can hardly bear to tell or be told, let alone believe," Suetonius wrote, describing how "in Capri's woods and groves he arranged a number of nooks of venery where boys and girls got up as Pans and nymphs solicited outside bowers and grottoes: people openly called this 'the old goat's garden,' punning on the island's name."
There's much, much more — far too salacious and, frankly, disgusting to repeat here. For the intrepid or morbidly curious reader, here's a link for more information.
After he died, Tiberius was fittingly succeeded in emperorship by his grandnephew and adopted grandson Caligula.
New studies stretch the boundaries of physics, achieving quantum entanglement in larger systems.
- New experiments with vibrating drums push the boundaries of quantum mechanics.
- Two teams of physicists create quantum entanglement in larger systems.
- Critics question whether the study gets around the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Recently published research pushes the boundaries of key concepts in quantum mechanics. Studies from two different teams used tiny drums to show that quantum entanglement, an effect generally linked to subatomic particles, can also be applied to much larger macroscopic systems. One of the teams also claims to have found a way to evade the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
One question that the scientists were hoping to answer pertained to whether larger systems can exhibit quantum entanglement in the same way as microscopic ones. Quantum mechanics proposes that two objects can become "entangled," whereby the properties of one object, such as position or velocity, can become connected to those of the other.
An experiment performed at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, led by physicist Shlomi Kotler and his colleagues, showed that a pair of vibrating aluminum membranes, each about 10 micrometers long, can be made to vibrate in sync, in such a way that they can be described to be quantum entangled. Kotler's team amplified the signal from their devices to "see" the entanglement much more clearly. Measuring their position and velocities returned the same numbers, indicating that they were indeed entangled.
Tiny aluminium membranes used by Kotler's team.Credit: Florent Lecoq and Shlomi Kotler/NIST
Evading the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
Another experiment with quantum drums — each one-fifth the width of a human hair — by a team led by Prof. Mika Sillanpää at Aalto University in Finland, attempted to find what happens in the area between quantum and non-quantum behavior. Like the other researchers, they also achieved quantum entanglement for larger objects, but they also made a fascinating inquiry into getting around the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The team's theoretical model was developed by Dr. Matt Woolley of the University of New South Wales. Photons in the microwave frequency were employed to create a synchronized vibrating pattern as well as to gauge the positions of the drums. The scientists managed to make the drums vibrate in opposite phases to each other, achieving "collective quantum motion."
The study's lead author, Dr. Laure Mercier de Lepinay, said: "In this situation, the quantum uncertainty of the drums' motion is canceled if the two drums are treated as one quantum-mechanical entity."
This effect allowed the team to measure both the positions and the momentum of the virtual drumheads at the same time. "One of the drums responds to all the forces of the other drum in the opposing way, kind of with a negative mass," Sillanpää explained.
Theoretically, this should not be possible under the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of the most well-known tenets of quantum mechanics. Proposed in the 1920s by Werner Heisenberg, the principle generally says that when dealing with the quantum world, where particles also act like waves, there's an inherent uncertainty in measuring both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely you measure one variable, the more uncertainty in the measurement of the other. In other words, it is not possible to simultaneously pinpoint the exact values of the particle's position and momentum.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Explained. Credit: Veritasium / Youtube.com
Big Think contributor astrophysicist Adam Frank, known for the 13.8 podcast, called this "a really fascinating paper as it shows that it's possible to make larger entangled systems which behave like a single quantum object. But because we're looking at a single quantum object, the measurement doesn't really seem to me to be 'getting around' the uncertainty principle, as we know that in entangled systems an observation of one part constrains the behavior of other parts."
Ethan Siegel, also an astrophysicist, commented, "The main achievement of this latest work is that they have created a macroscopic system where two components are successfully quantum mechanically entangled across large length scales and with large masses. But there is no fundamental evasion of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle here; each individual component is exactly as uncertain as the rules of quantum physics predicts. While it's important to explore the relationship between quantum entanglement and the different components of the systems, including what happens when you treat both components together as a single system, nothing that's been demonstrated in this research negates Heisenberg's most important contribution to physics."The papers, published in the journal Science, could help create new generations of ultra-sensitive measuring devices and quantum computers.
A 19th-century surveying mistake kept lumberjacks away from what is now Minnesota's largest patch of old-growth trees.
- In 1882, Josias R. King made a mess of mapping Coddington Lake, making it larger than it actually is.
- For decades, Minnesota loggers left the local trees alone, thinking they were under water.
- Today, the area is one of the last remaining patches of old-growth forest in the state.
Vanishingly rare, but it exists: a patch of Minnesota forest untouched by the logger's axe.Credit: Dan Alosso on Substack and licensed under CC-BY-SA
The trees here tower a hundred feet above the forest floor — a ceiling as high as in prehistory and vanishingly rare today. That's because no logger's axe has ever touched these woods.
Pillars of the green cathedral
As you walk among the giant pillars of this green cathedral, you might think you're among the redwood trees of California. But those are 1,500 miles (2,500 km) away. No, these are the red and white pines of the "Lost Forty" in Minnesota. This is the largest single surviving patch of old-growth forest in the state and a fair stretch beyond. And it's all thanks to a surveying error.
Despite its name, the Lost Forty Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) is actually 144 acres (0.58 km2) in total. Still, it's an easily overlooked part of the Chippewa National Forest, which sprawls across 666,000 acres (2,700 km2) of north-central Minnesota. And that – being easily overlooked – is kind of this area's superpower.
In the 1820s, when European-Americans arrived in what is now Minnesota, they found about 20 million acres (80,000 km2) of prairie and 30 million acres (120,000 km2) of forest. Two centuries on, both ecosystems largely have been depleted. Fewer than 100,000 acres (400 km2) of natural prairie remain, and fewer than 18 million acres (73,000 km2) of forest.
And today's woods are different. They're not just younger; the original pine stands have been harvested and largely replaced with aspen and birch.
To the moon and back
White pine especially was in heavy demand during the lumbering boom that had Minnesota in its grip by the 1840s — a boom driven by an insatiable demand for building materials and supercharged by the steam that powered the saws and the rails that transported the goods to market.
The two decades flanking the turn of the 20th century were the golden age of lumbering in Minnesota. At any given time, 20,000 lumberjacks were at work in the woods, a further 20,000 in the sawmills, and another 20,000 in other lumber-related industries.
Production peaked in the year 1900, with over 2.3 billion board-feet (5.4 million m3) of lumber harvested from the state's forests. That was enough to build 600,000 two-story houses or a boardwalk nine feet (2.7 m) wide, circling Earth along the equator. From then on, yields declined, albeit slightly at first. By 1910, however, the first lumber operations started packing up and moving on to the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere.
Minnesota's era of Big Timber symbolically came to an end with the closure of the Virginia and Rainy Lake Lumber Company in 1929. At that time, a century's worth of lumbering in Minnesota had produced 68 billion board-feet (160 million m3) of pine — enough to fill a line of boxcars all the way to the moon and halfway back again.
Now spool back a few decades. It's 1882, and the Public Land Survey is measuring, mapping, and quantifying the wilderness of northern Minnesota — and its as yet unharvested north woods. Setting out from the small settlement of Grand Rapids, Josias Redgate King leads a three-man survey team 40 miles north, into the backwoods.
Mapping error becomes cartographic fact
Their job, specifically, is to chart the area between Moose and Coddington Lakes. And they mess up. Perhaps it's the lousy November weather, the desolate swampy terrain, or both. But they make a serious mistake: their survey stretches Coddington Lake half a mile further northwest than it actually exists. As happens surprisingly often with mapping mistakes, the error becomes cartographic fact, undisputed for decades.
The area is marked on all maps as being under water and is therefore excluded from the considerations of logging companies. Only in 1960 is the area re-surveyed and the error corrected. But by then, as we have seen, Big Timber has moved on from the Gopher State.
Map of the "Lost Forty" SNA (top right). Bordering it on the south is the Chippewa National Forest Unique Biological Area. Credit: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Incidentally, Josias R. King was more than the mismapper of Coddington Lake. He has another, and rather better, claim to fame. When the Civil War broke out, Minnesota was the first state to offer volunteers to fight for the Union. At Fort Snelling, Mr. King rushed to the front of a line of men waiting to sign up.
So it was said, with some justification, that he was the first volunteer for the Union in all of the country. During the war, he attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. After, he returned to his civilian job, surveying. Because of his credentials as the Union's first volunteer, he was asked to pose for the face of the bronze soldier on the Civil War monument which was unveiled at St. Paul's Summit Park in 1903.
The loggers' loss is nature's gain
But back to the Lost Forty. The loggers' loss — hence the name — is actually nature's gain. The SNA's crowning glory, literally, is nearly 32 acres of designated old-growth red pine and white pine forest, in two stands, partially extending into the Chippewa National Forest proper. (In fact, much of the mismapped area seems to fall within the Chippewa National Forest Unique Biological Area adjacent to the Lost Forty.) Old-growth forests represent less than 2 percent — and designated old-growth forests less than 0.25 percent — of all of Minnesota's forests.
The oldest pine trees in the Lost Forty are between 300 and 400 years old, close to their maximum natural life span, which is up to 500 years. Similar pines in other parts of the National Forest are harvested at between 80 and 150 years for pulp and lumber. As a result, the pines in the Lost Forty are not only higher than most of the surrounding woods but also bigger with a diameter of between 22 and 48 inches (55 to 122 cm). One of the biggest has a circumference of 115 inches (2.9 m).
With their craggy bark, massive trunks, and dizzying height, these trees look like the ancient beings they are. And they exist in a cluster the size of which is unique for the Midwest. There's nothing lost about these trees; in fact, it's rather the reverse. Perhaps the area should more precisely be called the "Last Forty."
At 52 feet, only half as high as an old-growth white pine: Josias R. King's likeness atop the Soldier's Monument in Summit Park, St. Paul.Credit: Library of Congress
Get a good look at the Lost Forty in this video of the local hiking trail.
Strange Maps #1084
Got a strange map? Let me know at email@example.com.
"The question is which are okay, which are not okay."
- As the material that makes all living things what/who we are, DNA is the key to understanding and changing the world. British geneticist Bryan Sykes and Francis Collins (director of the Human Genome Project) explain how, through gene editing, scientists can better treat illnesses, eradicate diseases, and revolutionize personalized medicine.
- But existing and developing gene editing technologies are not without controversies. A major point of debate deals with the idea that gene editing is overstepping natural and ethical boundaries. Just because they can, does that mean that scientists should be edit DNA?
- Harvard professor Glenn Cohen introduces another subcategory of gene experiments: mixing human and animal DNA. "The question is which are okay, which are not okay, why can we generate some principles," Cohen says of human-animal chimeras and arguments concerning improving human life versus morality.