Alright, so relative to what I'm learning about and relative to a presentation I'm developing with a friend, I thought I'd give an introduction to and a mind-blowing example of a basis of Quantum Mechanics. This, as the title suggests, is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And this is also where physics leaves the realm of something called Classical physics and enters the realm of Quantum and Theoretical physics. Beyond Atomic (and some of Particle) physics, everything becomes theoretical or approximate. A large majority of theoretical and quantum physics is not based on physical instances, but rather based on probabilities; well, if you are a Copenhagen-ist. The Copenhagen theory is that all particles have a wavelength associated with them, and that upon observation that wavelength collapses (in fact that wavelength isn't real. It's just an interpretation of the probability that a particle will have any one particular value in any one instance). Observation doesn't just mean looking at something, it means that when the particle interacts physically with another particle that has been "observed" in some fashion, it collapses the wavefunction (the wavelength).
Take this test:
1) Without moving, look in front of you.
--Congratulations! You passed the first part! What you are doing when you look forward is the photons (which technically have not been observed yet) interact with the particles in front of you (that also technically have not been observed yet) and then you are "observing" them. You may already be confused. You may be asking Why can an unobserved particle, upon interacting with another unobserved particle, be observed and collapse both wavefunctions? The answer is initially easy, but very hard to wrap your mind around when you really think about it. Wavefunctions can "entangle" with each other, meaning that even though the photon in the previous explanation may not be touching the particle when the photon is observed, but the wavefunction of the photon is "entangled" with the wavefunction of the particle. So the collapse of the photon leads to the collapse of the particle (otherwise the particle would just appear nonexistant). This is called a Von Neumann chain, which is the idea that observing something that has entangled with another unobserved particle can, upon observation, collapse both wavefunctions.There is one really cool implication about this, which pertains to how far back a Von Neumann chain can go. Considering the speed of photons (travelling at the speed of light), it doesn't take long for a normal Von Neumann (hereby referred to as a VN) chain to collapse, as the photons involved travel relatively quickly. However, there is no limit to how long a VN chain can go on. It is possible (but not probable) that there are enough unobserved elements in a system to have a VN chain several minutes in delay (meaning that the first unobserved particle-unobserved particle interchange happened a few minutes ago, but only now is just observed). If you think about it, the particle wasn't collapsed a few minutes ago. But when you observe the tail end of the VN chain, that particle is instantly observed and "created". Think about it, aren't you creating history? If the particle didn't exist in a certain state let's say 3 minutes ago, and you observed it now, which makes the particle (through the VN chain) collapse back to 3 minutes ago, didn't your observance create its existence? Technically yes.
2) Without moving, don't look behind you.
--Easy right? Well think about this now. Is there a "behind you"? Is there that "scary monster" behind you that will "Sneak up on you and eat your soul if you don't send this email to 20 more people."? Well something has to be observed to exist right (under Copenhagen theory)? And if you are not observing what is behind you, how do you know it is there?
Spoiler:
......................................................................................................................................................
It's actually there. Don't worry.
......................................................................................................................................................
The photons that are entangling with all the particles behind you are hitting the back of your head. Remember how I stated what observation was? Still applies here. So yes, everything behind you does exist.
All of this is just based on probability. Weird, huh? Heisenberg (and Von Neumann) are really fascinating sometimes. And sometimes you just have to wonder whether they said all this just to mess with people's minds...
Anyway, thank you for reading/hopefully enjoying. You know what to do! Comments, questions, etc, all go in that little comment function below the post or you can send them straight to my Facebook!
Thanks!
--J
Friday, February 10, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Continuation (Theory) on Dimensional Theory
Well. I've been thinking. I know that you're wondering why I'm putting three posts in three days. But I have been considering what I wrote last night concerning how an object in one dimension cannot physically exist in another dimension. So what I've been thinking about is related to a cool property about the creation of matter.
Conservation of Mass and Energy state that matter cannot be spontaneously created or destroyed from pure "nothingness". What this means is that according to classical physics, an atom cannot just appear randomly. Well before you solidify that notion in your head, just know that matter can basically appear from nowhere. No one really knows exactly how it happens, but it does occur.
To give you a bit of background, there are two types of matter, matter and antimatter. Matter is what we know, it is what everything and everyone is made up of. Antimatter is exactly as it sounds, the opposite of matter.
Everything including matter and antimatter is made up of quarks (usually two or three), and every quark has one of three spins, classified by up/down, top/bottom, strange/charm (shortened to u/d, t/b, s/c). Particles (such as protons, neutrons, and electrons) have 3 quarks in them, which usually have combinations along the lines of uud (Up, Up, Down), etc. An antiparticle to uud then would be ddu (the exact opposite spins). When a particle and an antiparticle come together, it is a process known as "annihilation" where the particles basically disappear, but the energy released by the annihilation is released in the form of a pair of photons (essentially pure energy with particle/wave-like properties).
So what do we know about particles appearing out of nowhere? Well, we know that a particle and its antiparticle can be created from nothing (or rather appear from nothing), but since they have such a close proximity, they always annihilate and create a pair of photons from nothing (my theory is that spacetime has a certain energy level relevant to the Universal Entropy [more to come on that in another post] and when it gets too energetic, some raw energy is converted into a particle-antiparticle pair and then a pair of photons). This has many implications, especially in terms of black holes. I will post at a later date about black holes in depth, but all you need to understand at the moment is that black holes have something called an "event horizon" or a circumference, beyond which (towards the center of the black hole) matter cannot escape because of the strength of the gravity. So if a particle-antiparticle creation-annihilation happens on the event horizon what happens? The particle-antiparticle pair cannot annihilate if one of the two are beyond the event horizon. So that means black holes would be emitting random unpaired particles or antiparticles. Technically this is creating matter from nothing. Note: this is called Hawking Radiation and is theoretically very possible.
So what does this have to do with dimensional theory. Well. I don't think it's possible that particles and their antiparticles just appear out of nothing. The entropy-energy relationship is possible, but maybe there's more to it. I was wondering: since there's a small space between the particles and antiparticles when they're created, is it possible that there is some particle in the fourth dimension that basically "breaks down"? Could a particle just lose a dimension like that? (Imagine as if you had a cube that suddenly became two two-dimensional squares, the lines that are in the third dimension disappear). Think about this: If you look up at a fan rotating above your head, it rotates either clockwise or counter-clockwise. If you look at it top-down, the fan is rotating in the exact opposite direction. Relatively, the fan is spinning in one regular direction, but it could be said that the fan is spinning in two different directions in the third dimension. If you eliminated the third dimension, you would be left with two different fan images! Since it is spinning in two different directions dependent on your position in the third dimension, if there is no third dimension, it is still spinning in two directions, but the only way for it to do that is if there were two images of it (i.e. a fan and an anti-fan). So could a particle and an antiparticle be the result of some elimination of a dimension for a fourth (spatial) dimensional particle? I don't know, but I thought it was an interesting thought...
Anyways, questions/comments/ideas, you know what to do!
Thanks!
--J
Conservation of Mass and Energy state that matter cannot be spontaneously created or destroyed from pure "nothingness". What this means is that according to classical physics, an atom cannot just appear randomly. Well before you solidify that notion in your head, just know that matter can basically appear from nowhere. No one really knows exactly how it happens, but it does occur.
To give you a bit of background, there are two types of matter, matter and antimatter. Matter is what we know, it is what everything and everyone is made up of. Antimatter is exactly as it sounds, the opposite of matter.
Everything including matter and antimatter is made up of quarks (usually two or three), and every quark has one of three spins, classified by up/down, top/bottom, strange/charm (shortened to u/d, t/b, s/c). Particles (such as protons, neutrons, and electrons) have 3 quarks in them, which usually have combinations along the lines of uud (Up, Up, Down), etc. An antiparticle to uud then would be ddu (the exact opposite spins). When a particle and an antiparticle come together, it is a process known as "annihilation" where the particles basically disappear, but the energy released by the annihilation is released in the form of a pair of photons (essentially pure energy with particle/wave-like properties).
So what do we know about particles appearing out of nowhere? Well, we know that a particle and its antiparticle can be created from nothing (or rather appear from nothing), but since they have such a close proximity, they always annihilate and create a pair of photons from nothing (my theory is that spacetime has a certain energy level relevant to the Universal Entropy [more to come on that in another post] and when it gets too energetic, some raw energy is converted into a particle-antiparticle pair and then a pair of photons). This has many implications, especially in terms of black holes. I will post at a later date about black holes in depth, but all you need to understand at the moment is that black holes have something called an "event horizon" or a circumference, beyond which (towards the center of the black hole) matter cannot escape because of the strength of the gravity. So if a particle-antiparticle creation-annihilation happens on the event horizon what happens? The particle-antiparticle pair cannot annihilate if one of the two are beyond the event horizon. So that means black holes would be emitting random unpaired particles or antiparticles. Technically this is creating matter from nothing. Note: this is called Hawking Radiation and is theoretically very possible.
So what does this have to do with dimensional theory. Well. I don't think it's possible that particles and their antiparticles just appear out of nothing. The entropy-energy relationship is possible, but maybe there's more to it. I was wondering: since there's a small space between the particles and antiparticles when they're created, is it possible that there is some particle in the fourth dimension that basically "breaks down"? Could a particle just lose a dimension like that? (Imagine as if you had a cube that suddenly became two two-dimensional squares, the lines that are in the third dimension disappear). Think about this: If you look up at a fan rotating above your head, it rotates either clockwise or counter-clockwise. If you look at it top-down, the fan is rotating in the exact opposite direction. Relatively, the fan is spinning in one regular direction, but it could be said that the fan is spinning in two different directions in the third dimension. If you eliminated the third dimension, you would be left with two different fan images! Since it is spinning in two different directions dependent on your position in the third dimension, if there is no third dimension, it is still spinning in two directions, but the only way for it to do that is if there were two images of it (i.e. a fan and an anti-fan). So could a particle and an antiparticle be the result of some elimination of a dimension for a fourth (spatial) dimensional particle? I don't know, but I thought it was an interesting thought...
Anyways, questions/comments/ideas, you know what to do!
Thanks!
--J
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Understanding Modern Physics
"Anyone who is not shocked by Quantum Theory has not understood it"-- Niels Bohr
"If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics"-- Richard Feynman
Physics in general (especially Quantum Mechanics) beyond the level of Newtonian Mechanics is exceedingly hard to comprehend. I don't think that anyone will ever come close to understanding it, but I think that's how it is supposed to be. Either way, there are things that I try to appreciate that frankly blow my mind. Let me give you an example, along with a minor introduction to multiple dimensions.
Nowadays you might hear a lot about "other dimensions" whether in a positive, encouraging tone or a negative, joking, or mocking tone. I honestly take the approach that we have no way to suggest whether more dimensions do or do not exist, but we have actual logical explanations for how they could exist. What do I mean? I don't mean to get into a whole theological debate, but personally I have not seen or heard of any logical proof that there is a god. Normally that would make me indifferent to the situation entirely, but as of yet I have not heard of or seen any possible explanation for how a god *would* exist and what it would do based off of any logical proof. For multiple dimensions the same standard applies, I have not encountered any logical proof that there are multiple dimensions. But, the difference between a god and multiple dimensions is that there are simple logical models* for how/why more dimensions exist and what significance/behavior they have.
*- by simple logical models I mean that they do not have any sort of convoluted logic or logic that can be misinterpreted. This does not mean that they are nonetheless difficult to comprehend. You will see why in a second.
Let's take the first dimension: A line in 'empty' space. This line has one "axis" (let's call it the x-axis). The line can move, but it can only move on one axis (the x-axis), which is why it's called the first dimension (i.e. one dimension/axis). The only special thing about this line is that it has no width or height, only depth, so it would be physically impossible to see.
Now let's consider the second dimension: (to make it simple) a rectangle in 'empty space'. Unlike the line, this rectangle has two axis (blowing your mind yet? No? Keep reading). again, you technically would not be able to see this rectangle that existed only in the second dimension because it has no height, only width and length. How is it not visible? Well let's consider also what it means to have height, and thus we enter the third dimension.
The third dimension is what is easiest for the human brain to comprehend. We grew up in such a "3-D" environment where everything we learn about simply is accepted as existing in the third dimension. These objects that exist in the third dimension also have height in addition to length and width. These objects we can see. Why? Think about it this way: You draw a line on a piece of paper with a standard HB No. 2 graphite pencil. Or a square, or a cube (simply a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object). When you draw, what is happening? (I hate to be scientifically breaking down what art is, but...) As you drag the tip of your pencil across the paper, small particles of graphite are breaking off the big graphite shaft in the pencil. They are caught up on the rough surface of the paper and stay there. When you think about it, these particles are clumps of atoms, and as far as we understand it, atoms exist with a length, width, and height (otherwise atomic physics get COMPLETELY messed up, which would be very very very very very bad...). So even though you have drawn a two-dimensional object, you actually have drawn something in the third dimension, as it also has a height.
So why wouldn't a two-dimensional object be visible?
For an object to be visible in the third dimension, it technically has to have a height, otherwise it simple doesn't appear. A piece of infinitely thin paper is still visible because of that minute thickness. A piece of paper with no thickness simply doesn't exist. AND YET, it is still a two dimensional object. Where does it exist? Technically in the second dimension.
But....where's the second dimension then?
Well ideally it's not in the third dimension. So it must exist somewhere. Unless multiple dimensions don't exist. But they do (simply by the nature that we can draw a representation of something that has only two dimensions). This is the point where my theory runs out. I don't know where it would exist.
So why did I write this? Well here's something to think about that may or may not creep you out and never let you sleep at night again *suppresses evil grin*. Since a second dimensional object has access to a dimension that a first dimensional object does not, the second dimensional object could theoretically use that second dimension in the same space as the first dimensional object. What that means is that the second dimensional object does not have to travel on the same axis as the first dimensional object, it could, in theory, "jump" over the endpoints of that first dimensional object (the line). So the second dimensional object could, by using the second dimension, put a point on any part of the line without going through the endpoints of the line. The same is visible from a third dimensional object (e.g. your finger) using the third dimension in the same space as a second dimensional object (e.g. a square drawn on a piece of paper). Notice how you can take your finger and put it anywhere in the square. And yet you don't have to go through the edges of the square, you simply go over them.
Now here's the hard part (to visualize/accept/think about). A fourth dimensional object (fourth spatial dimensional [the fourth dimension (un)officially is time]) could use the same principle to access the fourth dimension in the same space as a third dimensional object. What that means: a fourth (spatial) dimensional object could put its "fourth dimensional finger" anywhere inside a third dimensional object at will without going through or touching ANYTHING else in that third dimensional object. It's as if the fourth dimensional object could come into contact with one infinitely small point in a proton in the nucleus of an atom in the middle of a wooden cube without touching the cube, any other atoms in the cube, or any part of the atom that the point is in. Hard to imagine, no?
Fear not though. If you remember earlier in this post, theoretically objects that exist in a different dimension than our own actually don't appear in our dimension. So it is virtually impossible to interact (at least purposefully) with an object in a different dimension.
Also, this is my reasoning for why the experiment to determine whether the third dimension is simply a holographic version of the second dimension really is not feasible and it not an effective use of time, money, or resources.
Either way, thank you for reading, sorry about the recent lack of content (although hopefully this starts to make up for it), and as always if you have questions please feel free to comment anonymously (or with a name) or just send me a message on Facebook!
Thanks!
--J
"If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics"-- Richard Feynman
Physics in general (especially Quantum Mechanics) beyond the level of Newtonian Mechanics is exceedingly hard to comprehend. I don't think that anyone will ever come close to understanding it, but I think that's how it is supposed to be. Either way, there are things that I try to appreciate that frankly blow my mind. Let me give you an example, along with a minor introduction to multiple dimensions.
Nowadays you might hear a lot about "other dimensions" whether in a positive, encouraging tone or a negative, joking, or mocking tone. I honestly take the approach that we have no way to suggest whether more dimensions do or do not exist, but we have actual logical explanations for how they could exist. What do I mean? I don't mean to get into a whole theological debate, but personally I have not seen or heard of any logical proof that there is a god. Normally that would make me indifferent to the situation entirely, but as of yet I have not heard of or seen any possible explanation for how a god *would* exist and what it would do based off of any logical proof. For multiple dimensions the same standard applies, I have not encountered any logical proof that there are multiple dimensions. But, the difference between a god and multiple dimensions is that there are simple logical models* for how/why more dimensions exist and what significance/behavior they have.
*- by simple logical models I mean that they do not have any sort of convoluted logic or logic that can be misinterpreted. This does not mean that they are nonetheless difficult to comprehend. You will see why in a second.
Let's take the first dimension: A line in 'empty' space. This line has one "axis" (let's call it the x-axis). The line can move, but it can only move on one axis (the x-axis), which is why it's called the first dimension (i.e. one dimension/axis). The only special thing about this line is that it has no width or height, only depth, so it would be physically impossible to see.
Now let's consider the second dimension: (to make it simple) a rectangle in 'empty space'. Unlike the line, this rectangle has two axis (blowing your mind yet? No? Keep reading). again, you technically would not be able to see this rectangle that existed only in the second dimension because it has no height, only width and length. How is it not visible? Well let's consider also what it means to have height, and thus we enter the third dimension.
The third dimension is what is easiest for the human brain to comprehend. We grew up in such a "3-D" environment where everything we learn about simply is accepted as existing in the third dimension. These objects that exist in the third dimension also have height in addition to length and width. These objects we can see. Why? Think about it this way: You draw a line on a piece of paper with a standard HB No. 2 graphite pencil. Or a square, or a cube (simply a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object). When you draw, what is happening? (I hate to be scientifically breaking down what art is, but...) As you drag the tip of your pencil across the paper, small particles of graphite are breaking off the big graphite shaft in the pencil. They are caught up on the rough surface of the paper and stay there. When you think about it, these particles are clumps of atoms, and as far as we understand it, atoms exist with a length, width, and height (otherwise atomic physics get COMPLETELY messed up, which would be very very very very very bad...). So even though you have drawn a two-dimensional object, you actually have drawn something in the third dimension, as it also has a height.
So why wouldn't a two-dimensional object be visible?
For an object to be visible in the third dimension, it technically has to have a height, otherwise it simple doesn't appear. A piece of infinitely thin paper is still visible because of that minute thickness. A piece of paper with no thickness simply doesn't exist. AND YET, it is still a two dimensional object. Where does it exist? Technically in the second dimension.
But....where's the second dimension then?
Well ideally it's not in the third dimension. So it must exist somewhere. Unless multiple dimensions don't exist. But they do (simply by the nature that we can draw a representation of something that has only two dimensions). This is the point where my theory runs out. I don't know where it would exist.
So why did I write this? Well here's something to think about that may or may not creep you out and never let you sleep at night again *suppresses evil grin*. Since a second dimensional object has access to a dimension that a first dimensional object does not, the second dimensional object could theoretically use that second dimension in the same space as the first dimensional object. What that means is that the second dimensional object does not have to travel on the same axis as the first dimensional object, it could, in theory, "jump" over the endpoints of that first dimensional object (the line). So the second dimensional object could, by using the second dimension, put a point on any part of the line without going through the endpoints of the line. The same is visible from a third dimensional object (e.g. your finger) using the third dimension in the same space as a second dimensional object (e.g. a square drawn on a piece of paper). Notice how you can take your finger and put it anywhere in the square. And yet you don't have to go through the edges of the square, you simply go over them.
Now here's the hard part (to visualize/accept/think about). A fourth dimensional object (fourth spatial dimensional [the fourth dimension (un)officially is time]) could use the same principle to access the fourth dimension in the same space as a third dimensional object. What that means: a fourth (spatial) dimensional object could put its "fourth dimensional finger" anywhere inside a third dimensional object at will without going through or touching ANYTHING else in that third dimensional object. It's as if the fourth dimensional object could come into contact with one infinitely small point in a proton in the nucleus of an atom in the middle of a wooden cube without touching the cube, any other atoms in the cube, or any part of the atom that the point is in. Hard to imagine, no?
Fear not though. If you remember earlier in this post, theoretically objects that exist in a different dimension than our own actually don't appear in our dimension. So it is virtually impossible to interact (at least purposefully) with an object in a different dimension.
Also, this is my reasoning for why the experiment to determine whether the third dimension is simply a holographic version of the second dimension really is not feasible and it not an effective use of time, money, or resources.
Either way, thank you for reading, sorry about the recent lack of content (although hopefully this starts to make up for it), and as always if you have questions please feel free to comment anonymously (or with a name) or just send me a message on Facebook!
Thanks!
--J
Friday, February 3, 2012
Superconduction and Free Electricity
Well as I promised earlier, I should explain the magical panacea known as Superconductors. So let me begin by outlining electricity flow and why the power infrastructure around the world is set up as it is. The easiest example (somewhat obviously) is the United States and the national power grid. The National Power Grid (or NPG) is basically one big wire that stretches to most parts of the United States, rural and urban through three major grids, known as the Western Interconnection, the Eastern Interconnection, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas grid (ERCOT). The names of the grids imply what areas they cover, with the ERCOT grid covering most of the state of Texas by itself.
I won't go into detail with how exactly power is generated in the U.S., as this ranges both by grid and by geographical area, but a majority of power generation is from fossil fuels (usually coal) and is distributed over high-voltage wires across the nation. If you've ever heard the phrase "high-voltage wire" there is a reason why it is high-voltage. Electricity has certain rules that apply to it, one of them being Ohm's Law, which states that Resistance (R) = Voltage (V) / Current (I) [R = V/I]. This can be applied largely in two ways: one being the calculation for the instantaneous resistance in any component in an electrical circuit, the other being a representation of power lost over a circuit. Considering that power is simply voltage times current, that means that the voltage is always proportional to the current with a constant power supply. Therefore one could rearrange the two formulas to calculate the power lost due to resistance (incidentally this equals R(I^2)). From this we can say that the lower the current flowing through a long-distance conductor, the better. So for this to occur, the power coming from a generator must be "stepped up" (which means using a transformer to multiply the voltage), so that there is a low current running through a power line with a high voltage.
For a long time, society and engineering has focused on altering the power itself to modulate the power lost due to resistance. However, one has to remember that there are always two sides to these types of equations (hence the 'equals' sign). So, if we can change the voltage-current ratio to satisfy a certain resistance, why can we not change the resistance to satisfy the voltage-current ratio? Actually, we can. Fairly easily. Resistors run in all ranges basically, depending on the materials used in them (which could potentially be any element in the periodic table). We know how to eliminate all or close enough to all of the current in a circuit (besides breaking the circuit or directly grounding it), that just involves getting a combination of elements that has almost no conductive structure (not too hard). However, it is the exact opposite that eludes us.
So what is it that makes it so hard to lose all of the resistance if it's easy to find materials that have such a high resistance? The secret is in the atomic structure. Essentially, one can visualize the atoms in a substance in a lattice structure, where there is something closely resembling a large number of cubes fit together into a grid (NB: This is purely for explanatory purposes, the actual visualization is much more complicated to explain). Atoms themselves behave differently depending on the state of matter. Atoms in a gas aren't even really coherent to each other (in an Ideal Gas). In a liquid, atoms have some intermolecular loose bindings, where they stick together, but still can be separated easily (you can remove a cup of water from a pool with little effort to separate the two). Solids are much harder to do so. In solids, atoms are tightly packed and in a fairly regular structure. The intermolecular forces are strong, so it's not easy to pull a hefty stick apart. It's mildly easier to break it in half, but the wood does not break smoothly, and even so it's nigh on impossible to snap a full-sized tree in half with your bare hands (where as its still just as easy to grab a cup of water from an ocean). One can imagine that an electron will travel through a substance as long as it has some sort of ordered structure, and the more ordered it is, the easier the electron will go through it. Organic solids (e.g. wood) do not really conduct electricity even though it is a solid because the organic molecules are so complex and because it is not comprised of electrically conductive materials. Electrically conductive materials are not dependent on how solid they are, so simply finding the most solid material will not reduce resistance.
There is one way we know of right now that will reduce resistance beyond natural occurrences. There is another state of matter (actually there are two, the other being plasma) beyond Solids, called the Bose-Einstein Condensate (or BEC). A BEC revolves around the concept that theoretically an object or material can be cooled to the point that the atoms inside of it do not move at all (i.e. no kinetic energy from translation, rotation, or vibration). A BEC would essentially take an electrically conductive material and perfect align that "lattice" structure such that an electron could pass through it ideally uninhibited. There are problems with BECs at the moment, the most important being that to achieve this low state of kinetic energy, a material must be cooled as much as physically possible (most materials enter the BEC state near 0-degrees Kelvin or Absolute Zero). Scientists have shown that many electrically conductive metals when super-cooled will become something called superconductors, where the resistance is almost or even wholly nonexistent. The issue is that cooling materials to those temperatures is incredibly expensive. The dream relative to superconductors in the near future is to discover a material or compound that achieves this state at room temperature (hence room-temperature superconductors). Currently we implement superconductors that can operate while being cooled by large amounts of liquid nitrogen. While this isn't the perfect solution, it is mitigated by the fact that a gallon of liquid nitrogen is cheaper than a gallon of milk. So for example using super-cooled materials to create an incredibly strong magnet (e.g. CERN particle accelerator) is a relatively practical and cost-effective solution.
So what would the effects of discovering a room-temperature superconductor be? Anything from electricity cheaper than dirt to flying without wearing anything on your body. Yes, since everything exhibits a minor magnetic field, a room-temperature superconductor could easily create the strongest magnetic field imaginable that could easily keep a person floating in midair. Superconductors are, in my opinion, one of the most important technologies to focus research on going into the next decade.
Closing note: I'm sorry about the delay in posts, I promise to try harder to keep pumping out material when possible!
As always, thank you,
--J
I won't go into detail with how exactly power is generated in the U.S., as this ranges both by grid and by geographical area, but a majority of power generation is from fossil fuels (usually coal) and is distributed over high-voltage wires across the nation. If you've ever heard the phrase "high-voltage wire" there is a reason why it is high-voltage. Electricity has certain rules that apply to it, one of them being Ohm's Law, which states that Resistance (R) = Voltage (V) / Current (I) [R = V/I]. This can be applied largely in two ways: one being the calculation for the instantaneous resistance in any component in an electrical circuit, the other being a representation of power lost over a circuit. Considering that power is simply voltage times current, that means that the voltage is always proportional to the current with a constant power supply. Therefore one could rearrange the two formulas to calculate the power lost due to resistance (incidentally this equals R(I^2)). From this we can say that the lower the current flowing through a long-distance conductor, the better. So for this to occur, the power coming from a generator must be "stepped up" (which means using a transformer to multiply the voltage), so that there is a low current running through a power line with a high voltage.
For a long time, society and engineering has focused on altering the power itself to modulate the power lost due to resistance. However, one has to remember that there are always two sides to these types of equations (hence the 'equals' sign). So, if we can change the voltage-current ratio to satisfy a certain resistance, why can we not change the resistance to satisfy the voltage-current ratio? Actually, we can. Fairly easily. Resistors run in all ranges basically, depending on the materials used in them (which could potentially be any element in the periodic table). We know how to eliminate all or close enough to all of the current in a circuit (besides breaking the circuit or directly grounding it), that just involves getting a combination of elements that has almost no conductive structure (not too hard). However, it is the exact opposite that eludes us.
So what is it that makes it so hard to lose all of the resistance if it's easy to find materials that have such a high resistance? The secret is in the atomic structure. Essentially, one can visualize the atoms in a substance in a lattice structure, where there is something closely resembling a large number of cubes fit together into a grid (NB: This is purely for explanatory purposes, the actual visualization is much more complicated to explain). Atoms themselves behave differently depending on the state of matter. Atoms in a gas aren't even really coherent to each other (in an Ideal Gas). In a liquid, atoms have some intermolecular loose bindings, where they stick together, but still can be separated easily (you can remove a cup of water from a pool with little effort to separate the two). Solids are much harder to do so. In solids, atoms are tightly packed and in a fairly regular structure. The intermolecular forces are strong, so it's not easy to pull a hefty stick apart. It's mildly easier to break it in half, but the wood does not break smoothly, and even so it's nigh on impossible to snap a full-sized tree in half with your bare hands (where as its still just as easy to grab a cup of water from an ocean). One can imagine that an electron will travel through a substance as long as it has some sort of ordered structure, and the more ordered it is, the easier the electron will go through it. Organic solids (e.g. wood) do not really conduct electricity even though it is a solid because the organic molecules are so complex and because it is not comprised of electrically conductive materials. Electrically conductive materials are not dependent on how solid they are, so simply finding the most solid material will not reduce resistance.
There is one way we know of right now that will reduce resistance beyond natural occurrences. There is another state of matter (actually there are two, the other being plasma) beyond Solids, called the Bose-Einstein Condensate (or BEC). A BEC revolves around the concept that theoretically an object or material can be cooled to the point that the atoms inside of it do not move at all (i.e. no kinetic energy from translation, rotation, or vibration). A BEC would essentially take an electrically conductive material and perfect align that "lattice" structure such that an electron could pass through it ideally uninhibited. There are problems with BECs at the moment, the most important being that to achieve this low state of kinetic energy, a material must be cooled as much as physically possible (most materials enter the BEC state near 0-degrees Kelvin or Absolute Zero). Scientists have shown that many electrically conductive metals when super-cooled will become something called superconductors, where the resistance is almost or even wholly nonexistent. The issue is that cooling materials to those temperatures is incredibly expensive. The dream relative to superconductors in the near future is to discover a material or compound that achieves this state at room temperature (hence room-temperature superconductors). Currently we implement superconductors that can operate while being cooled by large amounts of liquid nitrogen. While this isn't the perfect solution, it is mitigated by the fact that a gallon of liquid nitrogen is cheaper than a gallon of milk. So for example using super-cooled materials to create an incredibly strong magnet (e.g. CERN particle accelerator) is a relatively practical and cost-effective solution.
So what would the effects of discovering a room-temperature superconductor be? Anything from electricity cheaper than dirt to flying without wearing anything on your body. Yes, since everything exhibits a minor magnetic field, a room-temperature superconductor could easily create the strongest magnetic field imaginable that could easily keep a person floating in midair. Superconductors are, in my opinion, one of the most important technologies to focus research on going into the next decade.
Closing note: I'm sorry about the delay in posts, I promise to try harder to keep pumping out material when possible!
As always, thank you,
--J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)