Intro to the Kardashev

Hello again!

If you are a first-time visitor to the blog and decided to read the top post instead of the first post, welcome anyways! (And I would recommend reading the posts chronologically). If you are a continuing reader welcome back and thanks for continuing to have some interest (or at least nothing better to do)! So, I do realize that my last post was not quite as pertinent to the title and web address of this blog, but I feel like it's a good intro to some of the theories of the base energy of our universe. Since my first post wasn't all that relevant to the core of this blog, I feel like this post should be very relevant to the core so as to, I don't know, make up for some of the weight.

I guess I should explain the core of this blog if I am to make any sense (did that make sense grammatically?). If you have seen the address of this blog or the title of the blog (you must have seen at least one of the two, right?) and if by some chance you have done some reading on websites such as http://www.popsci.com or some other such scientific website you might guess what this blog is based on. That's right, the Kardashev Scale!! Don't know what that is? Fear not, that's what I will focus on right now.

The Kardashev Scale, and You


Let me start with a very basic notion. At any particular moment today, you may search the term "energy" on Google and come back with over 6 billion results. That's relatively close to one result per person (or if you want to be precise, roughly .86 results per person). Let me tell you though, a very large majority of those results concern something called fossil fuels, which I am fairly sure that you have some concept of. In 2009, the current energy demands of the United States alone were 84% based on fossil fuels (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/fossil-fuels/), and odds are that figure has not changed very much. I cannot place the blame on anybody or any administration for that, only be mildly riled up at the incredibly slow progress of one of the world's most powerful, wealthy, and scientific nations in these matters. Anyway, the point of this is that our energy is largely dependent on fossil fuels (as well as most other countries in the world). Admittedly fossil fuels are a cheap and easy solution to produce large amounts of energy, but I really don't think that can be an excuse, nor can anything. Okay, minor rant over. What does this all mean? Well, energy and especially the source of that energy is the primary determinant factor of a civilization's ranking on the Kardashev Scale. And by civilization I do not mean the culture or empire civilizations, I'm talking about civilizations on a global scale. Our planet, Earth, is a civilization in itself, at least compared to whatever else might be out there.

To give you a basic overview of the Kardashev Scale and the types of civilizations, here's our good friend Dr. Michio Kaku (co-founder of the string theory and author of many books such as Physics of the Impossible) talking about the "three types of extra-terrestrial civilizations".

At the moment we are not quite at level 0 on the scale. Relative to our power output and dependency, we are approximately at level 0.72. The algorithm is roughly K (scale rating) = log[base 10] MW (the power produced on earth in megawatts) / 10. The scaling of the ratings have differed recently based on whether the MW power referenced in the formula is the power used for interstellar communication or the total power produced, but as long as the scaling holds the same, the rating should stay the same. Estimates at the moment put us up to .73 by 2030 and at best we should reach a type 1 civilization in approximately 100 years from now at the rate we are going. That is awesome, but I honestly think we can go faster.

As far as I can see it, there are two major technological and scientific advancements that can greatly speed this process along. The first is discovering the secrets and/or the processes behind the magic that is fusion. The endless, hyper-cheap source of power that would essentially eliminate the need for fossil fuels altogether through a special compound called deuterium. The second is discovering something called the room-temperature superconductor. A superconductor implies that any electrical current passed through this material holds no internal resistant power loss, eliminating the need to take measures to reduce power loss in everything and making electricity as cheap as dirt. I will explain both of these advancements in depth in later posts and where we stand on the progress of both. There are a few other supposed ways to reach Type 1 (such as antimatter exploitation), but again, I'll explain why those aren't feasible options in another post.

So those are the basics of the Kardashev scale, and how it relates to the global population (all in a nutshell of course). There are now three posts coming up to look forward to (superconductors, fusion, and the impracticality of large scale production and usage of antimatter for energy), so please stay tuned!

As always, thank you for your time, and I'll leave you with a bit of Dr. Kaku's strange and question-dodging ways of thinking.

Thanks!

--J

Double Well Potential

So. As many of you might already know (or have heard of), there is a search going on for the moment (and for the past 10 or so years I guess) for something called the 'God Particle' or the Higgs-Boson. This particle supposedly could make up for many holes in the theories of Quantum Gravity and the Unified Field Theory, both of which are not all too solidified. So. At the moment there is a somewhat credible hypothesis circulating on why we can't find the Higgs-Boson or at least where we should generally look.

Let me start with the beginning (a very good place to start, I know). A while ago, a theory was born that the total energy level of the universe could be graphed on a simple x-y plot. It essentially was an even function curve that looked somewhat similar to a 'w' and that had a central origin in the middle spike, with the two sides theoretically stretching into infinity. The idea was that when the universe was born it rested momentarily on the middle spike, at the "ultimate" or "perfect" energy, but soon fell off to either side. Since the minima of the curve seem to suggest that the universal energy level sits at the lowest possible state, that the current 'state of energy' resides at that point (wherever it may be). Now, there is a second large debate over what that 'state of energy' implies, however the current thought is that it relates all relativistic things such as the speed of light, gravity, de Broglie wavelengths, etc. Anyways, whatever it may be, our universe sits at one of the two states of energy. It is completely possible that there is a universe exactly like ours, except on the other side of the peak; or at least this was thought possible until a little thing called the third dimensional well postulate came along.

I cannot remember this name off the top of my head, but soon after the two dimensional well potential arrived, the fairly common outcry was that our universe existed in three dimensions, so shouldn't it be possible that the universe fell in more than just one dimension? The physical and spatial reasoning for this is essentially correct, but the question of the nature of energy really cannot determine this. For example, waves are commonly represented in two-dimensional sinusoidal form. It is usually taught that they don't solely exist in two dimensions, but that the representational figure is much easier to draw in two dimensions. What we do not know is whether the waves are two dimensional or not. Theoretically, under the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, we may know the shape of the wave relative to wavelength, but since the rotation of the wave is a property related to the shape of the wave relative to the wavelength, both cannot be known at the same time. That does not mean inductively that there is a rotational property and a wavelength property, but it does mean deductively that if they both happened to exist we would never be able to correctly ascertain those properties at the same time. Either way, I digress.

So the theory is that there is a third dimension component of the double well potential. That means if you were to pin the curve down to a point from the top and rotate the function along the y-axis as the primary axis of rotation, you would trace the path of the new curve (just to give you an idea it looks like a bowl with the center pulled up with a smooth [rather than sharp] point in the middle). Now the theory is that after the universe was created from the infinitesimally small point, it fell in some x, y, and z direction down to the bottom of the well and stayed there. Again, spatially it makes some sense but pragmatically it can't be affirmed. So now essentially there is one perfect point and a circular well along which the universe is free to travel. We also should be able to traverse the walls and central point of the curve to some extent, but there is a limit at which the curve holds back the potential total energy.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!

There is one last postulate that was added to explain the seemingly random symmetry of this 'even' function (for those of you who don't know, an even function is one that is symmetrical across the y-axis and rarely occurs with properties in nature). This new postulate is the Offset Postulate, which essentially states that, no, the double well potential is not perfectly the same along the two minima, but that one is actually LOWER than the other (or if you want to be picky that one is higher than the other)! In the two dimensional double well potential this would not make much of a difference in a comparative setting as we in this universe would never know if the other universe or entity or whatever had a higher or lower equilibrium energy point. However, if the three dimensional double well potential (which really at that point can't be called a double well potential, I'd call it a ring well potential) were the one that actually applied and had a lopsided minima circle, then that would explain quite a few things. It would explain why the equilibrium energy remains roughly the same (instead of moving around that ring and changing constantly based on some unforeseen factor) and why when we attempt to disrupt the equilibrium energy in any direction we are always pushed back to the lowest point. With a ring we could change the energy level in the x and z directions (whatever that may imply) easily with no repercussions. As such we have not seen any sign that indicates any condition like that. The final piece of evidence to support a three dimensional lopsided double well (or ring) potential is that it covers all of the other previously hypothesized potentials. A cross section perfectly adjunct to the lopsided axis of symmetry would yield an even function with perfect symmetry in two dimensions. The three dimensional even function ring potential would not need to be accounted for as it would not be supported by the minimum potential theory.

So I just thought that I'd give a minor overview about the nature of our universe (or at least locally) to be able to segue into more broad and global/energy/universal topics.

Thank you for your time.

--J

Welcome!

Welcome to you all!

If this is your first time visiting this blog I would be pleased to explain (in a general sense) who I am and what I am doing on here. If you are familiar with blogs (which I am assuming you are), then you can understand my general mission for this particular webpage. In a basic, and hopefully steadily progressing form, I hope to make this blog a hubpage for discussions, reposts, hyperlinks, and a repository of theories concerning the state of our earth as a planet and as a civilization in a galactic sense.

In some ways this blog may seem like a science fiction writer's webpage and in some senses I am one. But I do not appreciate the full value of the word 'fiction' according to the semantics in which Dictionary.com defines as:

fic·tion

  [fik-shuhn]

noun

1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.

2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.

3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.

4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.

5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

Now, let me be clear. Not everything that I write within this blog will be true. Much of it will be postulated. Hopefully, however, most of it will be generated by you, the (potentially) readers. But that does not mean that this is a science fiction blog. This is a science blog. This is a galactic science blog. This blog is to propogate the ideas of everyone that wishes to share them. I know, I can share sometimes the frustration of not being to publicly share an idea I have and have the potential for people to see and read it. In any case, hopefully all will be able to share here with no hesitation. That being said, I (as well as others who might be reading) would highly appreciate it if there would be no spam and no suppression on here. Everyone is free to share ideas, but that does not include those who are merely posting or commenting because they find it funny to attempt to disrupt the flow of ideas with inane commentary. Thank you.

So I should probably give a quick background as to who I am. I am a senior in high school at the moment with an interest in pursuing Applied Physics and Mechnical Engineering in college. I have had a passion for astrophysics and Quantum physics for the past few years, and have been avidly reading about and following such topics. I have taken a few classes in my interests at the university level, but nothing beyond a month or so at most. Hopefully my college education will more than make up for that.

Beyond that, if you have any any initial questions or questions as you read, please feel free to comment on any of the posts and I (or someone else) will try to get back to you as soon as possible. If there is enough discussion I will most likely write a blog post about it as well.

Thank you!

-J