The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well:
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
“First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct ... leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’"
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A".
Anon.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Global Warming Redux
Today’s (11/7/06) NY Times (in the Science Section) has a very interesting article on global warming. It mentions virtually all the possible reasons for global warming that I have previously documented. And it adds one more – the movement of our solar system within the Milky Way may change the amount of cosmic rays bombarding our earth which, in turn, changes the level of cloud cover and therefore our climate. However, one of the more interesting discussions centers on the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Robert Rohde of the University of California at Berkeley offers the following chart of carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere over the last 600 million years --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
-- showing the dramatic drop in levels of this gas. He also was quoted here as saying that “carbon dioxide is just one of the many influences” on our climate. Q.E.D.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
-- showing the dramatic drop in levels of this gas. He also was quoted here as saying that “carbon dioxide is just one of the many influences” on our climate. Q.E.D.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Acceleration of Light
In a previous Junk Science blog, I posited that things that might travel at the limit of speed (light rays in a perfect vacuum for instance) appear to have infinite acceleration at time zero (at the instant of creation) and zero acceleration thereafter. I will try here to rationalize this conclusion.
The formula for acceleration is d/(t**2) or distance divided by time squared. This can be also expressed as (d/t)*(1/t). Now, at time zero plus the minutest amount, light will be traveling at 186,000 miles per second. Also substituting in the second part of this formula, 1/0.1 = 10, 1/0.001 =1000, 1/0.000001=1,000,000, etc. Therefore, as the time interval decreases to nothing (gets infinitely small), the second part of this formula gets infinitely large. And, anything times infinity is infinity. Ergo, the acceleration of light at time zero is infinite.
Of course, one may then use the same logic to argue that the acceleration of anything is infinite at time zero. However, most other entities have virtually zero speed at time zero (plus the minutest amount). Therefore, zero times infinity is not infinity.
The formula for acceleration is d/(t**2) or distance divided by time squared. This can be also expressed as (d/t)*(1/t). Now, at time zero plus the minutest amount, light will be traveling at 186,000 miles per second. Also substituting in the second part of this formula, 1/0.1 = 10, 1/0.001 =1000, 1/0.000001=1,000,000, etc. Therefore, as the time interval decreases to nothing (gets infinitely small), the second part of this formula gets infinitely large. And, anything times infinity is infinity. Ergo, the acceleration of light at time zero is infinite.
Of course, one may then use the same logic to argue that the acceleration of anything is infinite at time zero. However, most other entities have virtually zero speed at time zero (plus the minutest amount). Therefore, zero times infinity is not infinity.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Darwin Schmarvin
Recently the NY Times ran a squib in its Science Section about crickets in Hawaii that were being decimated by a parasitic fly whose larva burrow into the cricket and kill it. This fly is attracted to the cricket by its distinctive chirp and lays its eggs to the fatal detriment of the cricket. On the island of Kauai, since 1991, these crickets have been in sharp decline as a consequence. However, more recently the population of these crickets has risen dramatically as they have fortuitously lost their ability to chirp by a genetic mutation that eliminated a protuberance on their forewings that, when rubbed together, produces this clarion call. And this genetic change has all occurred in less than 20 generations according to researchers.
There is a branch of evolutionary science (not based in “intelligent design” or God-directed genetic mutation) called the “eonic effect” which proposes a non-random or environmentally-directed pattern of evolution. This somewhat contradicts Darwin’s basic claim of “natural selection,” a totally random process of genetic mutation which then preserves the more beneficial of these mutations through the better survival and reproduction of various effected species. It seems to me that pure Darwinian evolution could not have produced this cricket’s almost-complete genetic mutation in just 20 generations. The reason for my skepticism derives from the fact that such a random mutation should take many generations to first occur. Then, because both forewing protuberance and non-protuberance crickets would successfully breed (the parasitic fly still to kill the former), many, many more generations would be needed for this mutation to become rife.
I have sensed for a long time that the eonic effect has been at least a partial contributor to biota evolution (including for our own species) … mainly because of the immense diversity of plants and animals that has occurred in the relatively short period (even if tens of millions of years). Clearly, non-agenda-driven statisticians could contribute mightily to our better understanding of the push and pull between these two seeming contributors to evolution.
(You may ask: How then do the female crickets find the non-chirping male ones to mate? The answer is there are still a few chirpers left ... soooo ... all the non-chirping males congregate near the male chirpers and, when the females come acallin', they are usurped by the non-chirpers. I wonder how the Darwinians would explain this one? Survival of the non-fittest? What happens when all the chirpers die off? Perhaps the females will start using escort services?)
There is a branch of evolutionary science (not based in “intelligent design” or God-directed genetic mutation) called the “eonic effect” which proposes a non-random or environmentally-directed pattern of evolution. This somewhat contradicts Darwin’s basic claim of “natural selection,” a totally random process of genetic mutation which then preserves the more beneficial of these mutations through the better survival and reproduction of various effected species. It seems to me that pure Darwinian evolution could not have produced this cricket’s almost-complete genetic mutation in just 20 generations. The reason for my skepticism derives from the fact that such a random mutation should take many generations to first occur. Then, because both forewing protuberance and non-protuberance crickets would successfully breed (the parasitic fly still to kill the former), many, many more generations would be needed for this mutation to become rife.
I have sensed for a long time that the eonic effect has been at least a partial contributor to biota evolution (including for our own species) … mainly because of the immense diversity of plants and animals that has occurred in the relatively short period (even if tens of millions of years). Clearly, non-agenda-driven statisticians could contribute mightily to our better understanding of the push and pull between these two seeming contributors to evolution.
(You may ask: How then do the female crickets find the non-chirping male ones to mate? The answer is there are still a few chirpers left ... soooo ... all the non-chirping males congregate near the male chirpers and, when the females come acallin', they are usurped by the non-chirpers. I wonder how the Darwinians would explain this one? Survival of the non-fittest? What happens when all the chirpers die off? Perhaps the females will start using escort services?)
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Gravity's Rainbow
Here are some thoughts about gravity that have been keeping me awake for lo these many nights:
- We were somewhat led astray in Physics 101. A bowling ball and a golf ball do NOT fall to Earth from the same height at the same rate. Gravity is a function of the density of opposing masses and the distance between them. Since the bowling ball is more massive than the golf ball, it falls slightly faster, but because the mass of the Earth so overwhelms the mass of these two balls, the difference is so slight as to be almost immeasurable.
- In the U.S., force is measured in poundals (a function of the existing gravitational pull of the Earth). Mass is measured in pounds, ounces, etc. I find it a little strange that the weight of things on Earth (a force) is given in pounds, etc. when they really should be given in poundals (or newtons … or dynes).
- We know a lot about gravity except what it really is? Clearly gravity exists at the celestial level. It even seems to exist at the molecular level. (Isn’t this how dust bunnies come to be?) And I even believe that it exists at the sub-atomic level. Otherwise, how can black holes have such massive gravity when all their atoms have been crushed down to their most elementary particles? Beyond this I cannot speculate except that gravity may, in the very end, be another dimension. (Einstein said that gravity was a “warp in the space-time continuum”. I suspect that, if he were alive today and given the speculation on a 10-dimensional world, he might also label it another “dimension".)
- Speaking of black holes, their massive gravity keeps even light from escaping their grasp. Doesn’t this suggest that photons have at least some mass however minute? Also, Einstein’s “gravity lens” bends light around large stars. This too supports the idea that photons have some minimal mass since their “mass” is clearly influenced by the gravity of these large stars.
- Matter, by its mass, has gravity; energy doesn’t (at least in many scientists’ opinion). Is this the major difference between them? When matter is converted to energy (say through fission), it seems to lose its gravity. And if energy can be converted back into mass (a controversial postulate*), must it re-acquire gravity first?
- Gravity can seem to emanate from empty space. Consider the donut. Its center of gravity, when horizontal is at the center of its whole … so one cannot balance it on a pencil in this orientation. If one had a donut the size of the earth and someone fell from outer space toward its center of gravity, would the faller keep on going through the whole and back into space? If one was walking on the surface of this weird planet toward the hole, at what point would one’s adhesion to the surface become unstable enough to jeopardize one’s safety?
- Gravity seems to act instantaneously across the vastness of space (consider Pluto obediently staying in its orbit), whereas a gravitational wave (a fluctuation in the curvature of space-time which propagates as a wave) is said to travel at the speed of light. If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, how long would it take for the planets in our Solar System to fly off into space? At the same time someone on Pluto saw, after a 4.1 hour delay, the Sun's light go out … or instantly? I propose that, if it would be instantly, then there is more evidence that gravity is indeed another dimension.
- Gravity, it seems, has organized the matter in our universe into planets, planetary systems, solar systems, and galaxies. However, once converted to energy, this same universe tends to dissipate due to entropy. Therefore, entropy’s antithesis (in two different ways) is gravity.
* In 1998 researchers at Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center successfully converted energy into matter. This feat was accomplished by using lasers and incredibly strong electromagnetic fields to change ordinary light into matter.
- We were somewhat led astray in Physics 101. A bowling ball and a golf ball do NOT fall to Earth from the same height at the same rate. Gravity is a function of the density of opposing masses and the distance between them. Since the bowling ball is more massive than the golf ball, it falls slightly faster, but because the mass of the Earth so overwhelms the mass of these two balls, the difference is so slight as to be almost immeasurable.
- In the U.S., force is measured in poundals (a function of the existing gravitational pull of the Earth). Mass is measured in pounds, ounces, etc. I find it a little strange that the weight of things on Earth (a force) is given in pounds, etc. when they really should be given in poundals (or newtons … or dynes).
- We know a lot about gravity except what it really is? Clearly gravity exists at the celestial level. It even seems to exist at the molecular level. (Isn’t this how dust bunnies come to be?) And I even believe that it exists at the sub-atomic level. Otherwise, how can black holes have such massive gravity when all their atoms have been crushed down to their most elementary particles? Beyond this I cannot speculate except that gravity may, in the very end, be another dimension. (Einstein said that gravity was a “warp in the space-time continuum”. I suspect that, if he were alive today and given the speculation on a 10-dimensional world, he might also label it another “dimension".)
- Speaking of black holes, their massive gravity keeps even light from escaping their grasp. Doesn’t this suggest that photons have at least some mass however minute? Also, Einstein’s “gravity lens” bends light around large stars. This too supports the idea that photons have some minimal mass since their “mass” is clearly influenced by the gravity of these large stars.
- Matter, by its mass, has gravity; energy doesn’t (at least in many scientists’ opinion). Is this the major difference between them? When matter is converted to energy (say through fission), it seems to lose its gravity. And if energy can be converted back into mass (a controversial postulate*), must it re-acquire gravity first?
- Gravity can seem to emanate from empty space. Consider the donut. Its center of gravity, when horizontal is at the center of its whole … so one cannot balance it on a pencil in this orientation. If one had a donut the size of the earth and someone fell from outer space toward its center of gravity, would the faller keep on going through the whole and back into space? If one was walking on the surface of this weird planet toward the hole, at what point would one’s adhesion to the surface become unstable enough to jeopardize one’s safety?
- Gravity seems to act instantaneously across the vastness of space (consider Pluto obediently staying in its orbit), whereas a gravitational wave (a fluctuation in the curvature of space-time which propagates as a wave) is said to travel at the speed of light. If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, how long would it take for the planets in our Solar System to fly off into space? At the same time someone on Pluto saw, after a 4.1 hour delay, the Sun's light go out … or instantly? I propose that, if it would be instantly, then there is more evidence that gravity is indeed another dimension.
- Gravity, it seems, has organized the matter in our universe into planets, planetary systems, solar systems, and galaxies. However, once converted to energy, this same universe tends to dissipate due to entropy. Therefore, entropy’s antithesis (in two different ways) is gravity.
* In 1998 researchers at Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center successfully converted energy into matter. This feat was accomplished by using lasers and incredibly strong electromagnetic fields to change ordinary light into matter.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Junk Science
Junk Science
I once heard a creationist elaborate on his reasons why the theory of evolution was hokum. His incredulous interrogator asked how he could deny all the fossil discoveries that supported Darwin’s theory. He replied with the assertion: “Almost every scientific theory I’ve ever heard has later been proven incorrect.” This, unfortunately, is not that far from the truth. Certainly Freud’s theories have been largely debunked and Darwin’s teachings on evolution are coming under increased scrutiny … particularly those concerning the randomness of genetic change being evolution’s driving force. And even Einstein has had some of his postulates enfeebled by more recent experimental discoveries (as of yet however, remarkably few). This assertion about flawed scientific theories is a disturbing fact (even though it does not support the derived assertion of the loopy creationists who voiced it.)
Most of these “failings” of science occur on the theoretical side. Applied science seems to be much more reliable. Certainly, our ability to send a space probe to Mars and run a rover around the Martian landscape for over a year is a remarkable applied scientific achievement. But when theoretical “scientists” take a small number of observations and then extrapolate consequences to a much larger universe (e.g.s, cholesterol-reduced diets, global warming, magnetic cures, damaging silicone implants, etc.) things become problematic. The problem seems to be either these scientists don’t sufficiently emphasize their caveats … or our ratings-hungry media ignore them. So we, the public, are jerked around. First we must eschew butter in favor of margarine. Then we discover that the hydrogenised unsaturated fats in oleo are very, very unhealthy. We are even becoming more subjected to “scientific” papers that use phoneyed-up data to justify their conclusions.
This is all very dangerous. Imagine if the scientists on the Manhattan Project, used today’s standards for scientific proof when building the atomic bomb. We might well have easily annulated ourselves. Even this author, while exposing my ideas under the title “Junk Science,” probably needs to include more warnings in my feeble fantasizing.
I once heard a creationist elaborate on his reasons why the theory of evolution was hokum. His incredulous interrogator asked how he could deny all the fossil discoveries that supported Darwin’s theory. He replied with the assertion: “Almost every scientific theory I’ve ever heard has later been proven incorrect.” This, unfortunately, is not that far from the truth. Certainly Freud’s theories have been largely debunked and Darwin’s teachings on evolution are coming under increased scrutiny … particularly those concerning the randomness of genetic change being evolution’s driving force. And even Einstein has had some of his postulates enfeebled by more recent experimental discoveries (as of yet however, remarkably few). This assertion about flawed scientific theories is a disturbing fact (even though it does not support the derived assertion of the loopy creationists who voiced it.)
Most of these “failings” of science occur on the theoretical side. Applied science seems to be much more reliable. Certainly, our ability to send a space probe to Mars and run a rover around the Martian landscape for over a year is a remarkable applied scientific achievement. But when theoretical “scientists” take a small number of observations and then extrapolate consequences to a much larger universe (e.g.s, cholesterol-reduced diets, global warming, magnetic cures, damaging silicone implants, etc.) things become problematic. The problem seems to be either these scientists don’t sufficiently emphasize their caveats … or our ratings-hungry media ignore them. So we, the public, are jerked around. First we must eschew butter in favor of margarine. Then we discover that the hydrogenised unsaturated fats in oleo are very, very unhealthy. We are even becoming more subjected to “scientific” papers that use phoneyed-up data to justify their conclusions.
This is all very dangerous. Imagine if the scientists on the Manhattan Project, used today’s standards for scientific proof when building the atomic bomb. We might well have easily annulated ourselves. Even this author, while exposing my ideas under the title “Junk Science,” probably needs to include more warnings in my feeble fantasizing.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Global Dimming
PBS is at it again. The other night they ran another breathless science documentary called “Global Dimming.” The premise of this program was that particulates migrating to our upper atmosphere were reflecting more and more sunlight back out into space (global dimming) … therefore causing global cooling. These particulates, of course, are mostly man-made … from car and plane combustion emissions, power plant exhausts, and other hydrocarbon burnings. (They conveniently ignore massive dust storms, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, intrusions of space dust, and other natural causes.)
The drama of this premise was that this global cooling is partially canceling out the global warming caused by mankind’s creation of greenhouse gasses (mostly carbon dioxide). Therefore, it was stated (gasp) that our attempts to remove particulate pollution from our environment would, in effect, speed up the process of global warming! The estimate was that global dimming has more than halved what would have been the effect of greenhouse gases on our global temperature rise (about one degree Fahrenheit over the last 40 years.) It was also estimated (by a starry-eyed scientist) that, by the end of this century, global warming would increase by as much as twenty degrees and that this would melt the Greenland ice cap and that this, in turn, would flood out all of Florida (talk about dramatic graphics!) Oh, yes … and polar bears would have disappeared. They would swim and swim looking for sea ice … and eventually drown.
It was then stated that the last time global temperatures rose dramatically was about three million years ago when a “natural” increase in carbon dioxide caused an episode of global warming of this magnitude. My question is “Why is an increase in carbon dioxide of this magnitude in prehistory 'natural' whereas what is happening now 'unnatural'”? Have all the justifications for this prehistoric episode disappeared?
The drama of this premise was that this global cooling is partially canceling out the global warming caused by mankind’s creation of greenhouse gasses (mostly carbon dioxide). Therefore, it was stated (gasp) that our attempts to remove particulate pollution from our environment would, in effect, speed up the process of global warming! The estimate was that global dimming has more than halved what would have been the effect of greenhouse gases on our global temperature rise (about one degree Fahrenheit over the last 40 years.) It was also estimated (by a starry-eyed scientist) that, by the end of this century, global warming would increase by as much as twenty degrees and that this would melt the Greenland ice cap and that this, in turn, would flood out all of Florida (talk about dramatic graphics!) Oh, yes … and polar bears would have disappeared. They would swim and swim looking for sea ice … and eventually drown.
It was then stated that the last time global temperatures rose dramatically was about three million years ago when a “natural” increase in carbon dioxide caused an episode of global warming of this magnitude. My question is “Why is an increase in carbon dioxide of this magnitude in prehistory 'natural' whereas what is happening now 'unnatural'”? Have all the justifications for this prehistoric episode disappeared?
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Global Warming
I have not read Michael Creighton’s new book, “State of Fear” (nor do I intend to), but I hear it debunks some of the myths surrounding global warming. There is little doubt that some atmospheric warming is taking place currently … but it is unclear to me that this is primarily due to man’s carbon dioxide creating activities.
If developed nations are responsible for global warming, then we are in for an interesting future … since the developing world (with its multi-billions of people) will all too soon also be in the “developed” world category. However, we do know from the history captured in geological formations that the world has gone through many natural warming and cooling cycles. These cycles have apparently been caused by one or more of the following events (roughly in order of potential effect):
1) Changes (wiggles) in the amount of the orthogonal offset in the Earth’s rotational axis relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun. (This offset is what causes our world’s seasons.)
2) The periodic cycle of sunspot activity (and other solar dynamics) causing a change in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.
3) Enormous emissions of Earth’s gasses and particulates naturally and during cataclysmic geological events like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
4) The Earth’s on-going global chemistry which creates and destroys massive amounts of inorganic compounds.
5) The periodic small perturbations of the Earth in its orbit … closer to and further from the sun
6) The evolving structure of the Earth’s upper atmosphere (magnetic, chemical, and electrical) which filter out or permit in the ethers of space.
7) Shifts in the Earth’s ocean currents caused by intercontinental plate tectonic movements and other poorly-understood factors.
8) The effect of the Earth’s biomass and mankind on the composition and proportions of our atmospheric gasses (carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, etc. -- e.g., early plants converted enormous amount of naturally occurring carbon dioxide into oxygen … which then enabled the evolution of animals … who then reciprocated by converting oxygen back into carbon dioxide). By the by, methane has 20 times the atmospheric warming effect as carbon dioxide … and is mainly produced by nature, not by man.
The notion of a change (caused by the burning of fossil fuels) in the relatively small proportion of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (from 310 to 370 parts per million during the last 40 years) is responsible for our current warming cycle seems to me to be the essence of human species egocentricity. If one truly comprehends the scope of the above-outlined possible reasons for global warming, then one has to conclude that politics must the driving force behind our current environmental hysteria. I think that any “scientist’ who lays global warming totally at the feet of the increase in carbon dioxide must first quantify the effects (positive and/or negative) of all the above possible causes.
Besides, global warming might not be all that bad. Imagine the huge wheat fields that could be planted in Siberia and Canada’s Northwest Territories. Imagine the opening of a passage through the sea ice north of Canada and Russia. Imagine the home heating fuel cost savings throughout the world. If, in fact, we are in a long-term warming cycle then, instead of moving to Florida for my retirement, I can just wait for Florida to move to me.
If developed nations are responsible for global warming, then we are in for an interesting future … since the developing world (with its multi-billions of people) will all too soon also be in the “developed” world category. However, we do know from the history captured in geological formations that the world has gone through many natural warming and cooling cycles. These cycles have apparently been caused by one or more of the following events (roughly in order of potential effect):
1) Changes (wiggles) in the amount of the orthogonal offset in the Earth’s rotational axis relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun. (This offset is what causes our world’s seasons.)
2) The periodic cycle of sunspot activity (and other solar dynamics) causing a change in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.
3) Enormous emissions of Earth’s gasses and particulates naturally and during cataclysmic geological events like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
4) The Earth’s on-going global chemistry which creates and destroys massive amounts of inorganic compounds.
5) The periodic small perturbations of the Earth in its orbit … closer to and further from the sun
6) The evolving structure of the Earth’s upper atmosphere (magnetic, chemical, and electrical) which filter out or permit in the ethers of space.
7) Shifts in the Earth’s ocean currents caused by intercontinental plate tectonic movements and other poorly-understood factors.
8) The effect of the Earth’s biomass and mankind on the composition and proportions of our atmospheric gasses (carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, etc. -- e.g., early plants converted enormous amount of naturally occurring carbon dioxide into oxygen … which then enabled the evolution of animals … who then reciprocated by converting oxygen back into carbon dioxide). By the by, methane has 20 times the atmospheric warming effect as carbon dioxide … and is mainly produced by nature, not by man.
The notion of a change (caused by the burning of fossil fuels) in the relatively small proportion of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (from 310 to 370 parts per million during the last 40 years) is responsible for our current warming cycle seems to me to be the essence of human species egocentricity. If one truly comprehends the scope of the above-outlined possible reasons for global warming, then one has to conclude that politics must the driving force behind our current environmental hysteria. I think that any “scientist’ who lays global warming totally at the feet of the increase in carbon dioxide must first quantify the effects (positive and/or negative) of all the above possible causes.
Besides, global warming might not be all that bad. Imagine the huge wheat fields that could be planted in Siberia and Canada’s Northwest Territories. Imagine the opening of a passage through the sea ice north of Canada and Russia. Imagine the home heating fuel cost savings throughout the world. If, in fact, we are in a long-term warming cycle then, instead of moving to Florida for my retirement, I can just wait for Florida to move to me.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Neutrinos
Recently I watched a PBS program on neutrinos. This was a fascinating saga of the search for the Fermi-posited neutrino by first locating huge vats of carbon tetrachloride deep inside mountains to count the number of neutrinos coming from the decay of electrons deep inside the sun. As these measurement technologies became more and more sophisticated (which I will not relate here) it became clear that, not only were there neutrinos, but they were indeed as numerous as predicted -- billions fly through every one square inch of our bodies every second. But since they carry no electric charge, they pass through the most solid of solids with little or no interaction -- thus their measurement difficulties. (Also, enormous one-way transfers of charged matter into inert subatomic particles would suggest that entropy is much more onerous than I have until now believed.)
One website (grandunification.com) suggests that the recombination of a photon and a high-energy neutrino can produce an electron. This theory fascinates me since it would provide a way for electrons to travel from the sun to the Earth by first splitting apart and later recombining. (Very few electrons travel through the vacuum of space and into the Earth’s atmosphere.) Why is this important? May I suggest two reasons:
1) If photovoltaic (solar cell) production of electricity (continuous electron streams) is, in fact, caused by (at least in small part) the combination of photons and neutrinos to produce electrons then this might lead to much more efficient solar energy capture research. (It has never made any intuitive sense to me that silicon or gallium arsenide wafers could, by themselves, forever produce electrons from only interactions with photons without some sort of external replenishment. This would require some everlasting source of electrons in the solar cell since there clearly can be electron sinks in the circuit … such as a charging battery.) It is also curious to note that gallium is used in newer neutrino measuring devices.
2) If photosynthesis is also triggered by such electron recreation from sunlight, then this would be part of the hydrocarbon manufacturing process. (If photosynthesis causes electrons to be produced from photons and neutrinos, then these electrons could be the first step in the electrolysis of water and/or carbon dioxide into their components … which then could chemically combine into various hydrocarbons.) If we were to fully understand this process, we might be able to replicate it more efficiently (from the quintillions of neutrinos and photons coming from the sun) to reduce one posited cause of atmospheric warming (carbon dioxide excess) and, at the same time, produce enormous hydrocarbon energy reservoirs.
And, if the above two hypotheses are true, then it would seem that the counting of neutrinos coming from the sun might have been or can be done a lot more simply.
Afterthought: If electrons can split into neutrinos and photons and then recombine (even in extremely small numbers) then isn’t it possible that this process could be the justification for “tunneling electrons”? Clearly, neutrinos can tunnel through resistors … and certain photons also (egs., x-ray, infrared, or gamma ray photons.)
One website (grandunification.com) suggests that the recombination of a photon and a high-energy neutrino can produce an electron. This theory fascinates me since it would provide a way for electrons to travel from the sun to the Earth by first splitting apart and later recombining. (Very few electrons travel through the vacuum of space and into the Earth’s atmosphere.) Why is this important? May I suggest two reasons:
1) If photovoltaic (solar cell) production of electricity (continuous electron streams) is, in fact, caused by (at least in small part) the combination of photons and neutrinos to produce electrons then this might lead to much more efficient solar energy capture research. (It has never made any intuitive sense to me that silicon or gallium arsenide wafers could, by themselves, forever produce electrons from only interactions with photons without some sort of external replenishment. This would require some everlasting source of electrons in the solar cell since there clearly can be electron sinks in the circuit … such as a charging battery.) It is also curious to note that gallium is used in newer neutrino measuring devices.
2) If photosynthesis is also triggered by such electron recreation from sunlight, then this would be part of the hydrocarbon manufacturing process. (If photosynthesis causes electrons to be produced from photons and neutrinos, then these electrons could be the first step in the electrolysis of water and/or carbon dioxide into their components … which then could chemically combine into various hydrocarbons.) If we were to fully understand this process, we might be able to replicate it more efficiently (from the quintillions of neutrinos and photons coming from the sun) to reduce one posited cause of atmospheric warming (carbon dioxide excess) and, at the same time, produce enormous hydrocarbon energy reservoirs.
And, if the above two hypotheses are true, then it would seem that the counting of neutrinos coming from the sun might have been or can be done a lot more simply.
Afterthought: If electrons can split into neutrinos and photons and then recombine (even in extremely small numbers) then isn’t it possible that this process could be the justification for “tunneling electrons”? Clearly, neutrinos can tunnel through resistors … and certain photons also (egs., x-ray, infrared, or gamma ray photons.)
Monday, January 23, 2006
Entropy
Many scientists predict that the universe will eventually wind down into a permanent state of entropy. That is, all forms of energy (or activity) will have decentralized themselves and all semblance of cosmic (and maybe even atomic) order will have disappeared. A scientific internet website’s definition of entropy is: “Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so.” (Remember, energy doesn’t really disappear. There is still the thermodynamic law that states that all energy is preserved either in its kinetic form, its potential form, or as electromagnetic radiation.)
Therefore entropy is a complete state of chaos where electromagnetic radiation and energy still exist but are so dispersed as to be effectively non-existent at a singular point. Eventually (billions and billions of years hence), all suns will have burned out … all planetary motion will have ceased … and all knowledge will have been lost. Thus, the antonym for entropy could be (and often is) stated as “organized information”. But, I have a somewhat different take on entropy’s antonym -- I think it is “evolution”. If entropy is the ultimate winding down of information … then evolution is the spontaneous winding up of order … encoded into the billions of DNA chemical pairs of millions of species on this earth (and perhaps on millions of other earth-like planets.) This is complimented by the quadrillions of bytes of information that is stored in our printed and electronic libraries – all enabled by the information encoded in the DNA of humans.
This makes evolution even more unique and, yes, precious – it is a guppy swimming upstream against the tsunami of ever-growing entropy. Thus, there is a race to the death, albeit a multi-billion year race, between physical entropy and biological evolution. I have no idea which one will win this race, but I suspect that our eventual fate is not as predetermined as many today predict.
Therefore entropy is a complete state of chaos where electromagnetic radiation and energy still exist but are so dispersed as to be effectively non-existent at a singular point. Eventually (billions and billions of years hence), all suns will have burned out … all planetary motion will have ceased … and all knowledge will have been lost. Thus, the antonym for entropy could be (and often is) stated as “organized information”. But, I have a somewhat different take on entropy’s antonym -- I think it is “evolution”. If entropy is the ultimate winding down of information … then evolution is the spontaneous winding up of order … encoded into the billions of DNA chemical pairs of millions of species on this earth (and perhaps on millions of other earth-like planets.) This is complimented by the quadrillions of bytes of information that is stored in our printed and electronic libraries – all enabled by the information encoded in the DNA of humans.
This makes evolution even more unique and, yes, precious – it is a guppy swimming upstream against the tsunami of ever-growing entropy. Thus, there is a race to the death, albeit a multi-billion year race, between physical entropy and biological evolution. I have no idea which one will win this race, but I suspect that our eventual fate is not as predetermined as many today predict.
Monday, January 16, 2006
3 Questions
If entropy is the ultimate fate of our universe, how is it that information and structure (anti-entropy) seems to be ever-growing?
Why does not the progression in the number of electrons at each valence level in an atom behave in a regular and predictable way?
Why is the temperature of absolute zero so absolute? (Can't atoms have negative movement?)
Why does not the progression in the number of electrons at each valence level in an atom behave in a regular and predictable way?
Why is the temperature of absolute zero so absolute? (Can't atoms have negative movement?)
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Photosynthesis
To the NY Times Editor,
Your "Observatory" article in the June 21st, 2005 Science Times section talks about photosynthesis taking place near deep-ocean hydrothermal vents using the meager light that eminates from the lava deep inside these vents. The implication from the scientists' quotes in this article is that photons are only present in the visible light spectrum. In fact, photons are indeed produced in the infrared section of the electromagnetic spectrum (produced by the heat eminating from these vents) ... and for that matter across the entire electromagnetic spectrum ... even for radio waves and gamma rays. Therefore, who is to say that photosynthesis may not be able to convert photons at these different energy levels into biological building blocks?
Sincerely,
George W. Potts
Your "Observatory" article in the June 21st, 2005 Science Times section talks about photosynthesis taking place near deep-ocean hydrothermal vents using the meager light that eminates from the lava deep inside these vents. The implication from the scientists' quotes in this article is that photons are only present in the visible light spectrum. In fact, photons are indeed produced in the infrared section of the electromagnetic spectrum (produced by the heat eminating from these vents) ... and for that matter across the entire electromagnetic spectrum ... even for radio waves and gamma rays. Therefore, who is to say that photosynthesis may not be able to convert photons at these different energy levels into biological building blocks?
Sincerely,
George W. Potts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)