"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
Saturday, February 4, 2012
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
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Welcome Back!
Hello again! I am so sorry that I haven't posted in awhile, so I'll just throw out this quick update before I head off to sleep (a revolutionary concept). So, let me talk about what I think the future of our civilization depends upon. It is undeniable now that the future of mankind rests upon how we use our energy and where we get it from. Currently our oil reserves can support the planet for awhile longer, but it is costly in every sense of the word. The prices of oil fluctuate constantly and they have innumerable domino effects upon every aspect of global politics, social structure, and economics. As tired as some of you may be of hearing the environmental effects of oil and petroleum production and consumption they cannot be ignored. To go on a mild tangent we had one of the most devastating environmental and economic disasters fairly recently (BP for those of you who don't want to think about it too hard). It ended up ruining a vital ecosystem as well as an energy company that frankly could have had a future. However, the economic need and demand of the global population encouraged an increase in oil farms, especially offshore. Dangerous practices such as 'fracking' are used wantonly even today with little to no regard as to the long term effects. [Fracking is essentially drilling a hole deep underground, then forcing pressurized steam into the hole, essentially cracking the ground around what is prospected to be an oil pocket, wherein the extraction machines can siphon the oil above ground. I won't go into too much detail but fracking causes all sorts of problems, including a release of heavy metals and dangerous natural chemicals into local water supplies, not to mention the terrain damage that a unsecured fracking process can cause. I will do another post on fracking sometime later.]
So. Back to my point. Alternate ways need to be found to revolutionize both where we get our energy from, and how we distribute it. The infrastructure required alone for the transportation of all manners of alternative energies are problematic and wasteful at best. That is where room-temperature superconductors come in (again, I will save that for another post). However, I want to briefly talk about what progress humankind is making in the elusive process of nuclear fusion. Now let me preclude this with a theoretical warning. Fusion according to most laws of thermodynamics is impossible. The first Law of Thermodynamics (in accordance with the Law of the Conservation of Energy) states simply that energy cannot be created or destroyed. That means that whatever energy you put into or remove from a system, you are left with the same energy in the other position (If i put 1000 J of energy into a system, the system now has a maximum of 1000 J of energy in addition to its current energy). That being said, a nuclear fusion process in essence suggests that it can produce more power and energy than it took to initiate. There may be other forces at play in this case, but we will not know until we find out (how's that for classic Scientific Method? And no, cold fusion does not count towards proof.).
So what are we doing now about learning the secrets of fusion? If you don't know already, the sun is essentially one unbelievably huge mass that is undergoing fusion processes. If done right, fusion can be self-sustaining (at least to an extent). You should have some concept of what a black hole is, or a supernova, but the point is that stars collapse through a supernovae process and then basically collapse into a black hole (the reason why is not concrete, but there are some pretty good theories out there right now). But stars like the Sun will eventually run out of fuel. I'll post yet another article sometime in the future about the four-step self-sustaining fusion process of stars, why, and how they burn out (for more advanced science-y people). But the fusion process will consistently generate large amounts of energy. That is the plan for the (not really) famous National Ignition Facility. The entire goal of this cluster of buildings is to fire possibly the most powerful laser on this planet into a deuterium or similar hydrogen-nuclei based fuel and compress it to the point that the atoms fuse in a self-sustaining reaction. The laser used in the NIF was the first to break the 1 MJ barrier (1 million Joules of energy) in 2009. [To give you an idea, 1 MJ is about the energy contained in a 2000 pound car moving at about 100 mph. But in a photon. Through complicated physics principles, a photon essentially has no mass. It has energy (in Joules) given by the equation E=hf (Planck's Postulate), but 1 MJ of energy in a very, very small particle becomes incredibly impressive, especially when considering that you don't necessarily feel individual photons. But you would feel a 1 MJ photon laser. It would be very painful.
The goal of this laser is to refract it through prismatic reflective mirrors around a sphere, and then again from evenly spaced points on the sphere inwards towards the middle, where the fuel is being kept. The problem with fusion is that it is millions of times harder than fission. Fission is splitting an atom's nucleus, releasing a large amount of energy. The neutrons from that nucleus hit surrounding nuclei, splitting them up, and causing a massive chain reaction that generates unbelievable amounts of force and energy. All from a group of atoms. Now whereas fission is outward movement of atoms and the atoms splitting up, fusion is the massive internal movement of atoms, with the goal of merging them into one big atom. This process is incredibly difficult (thanks to quantum chromodynamics), so the energy required to push all of the atoms together is hard to control and very unwieldy. The sphere and refracting mirrors must be perfect aligned. Leaving a gap in the compression force will force the atoms out of the hole like bullets out of a minigun. The force must also be in an adiabatic system, meaning whatever temperature generated within the fuel capsule must not have time to escape to the environment, as it will upset the whole balance, so the force has to be strong, precise, and fast. The process in itself is so difficult that the project essentially was abandoned until improvements could be made (which could not and still cannot be made due to a lack of budget and outside support). If the project were to fully succeed though, the energy to initiate it would supposedly be less than the energy that the process produces (again, violating Thermodynamics). However, it would be clean, powerful, and almost limitless.
So that's all I will write for tonight. I thank you all for being patient with me as I dealt with numerous outside things and hopefully you will be coming back soon. Expect another update soon though!
Thanks once again,
--J
So. Back to my point. Alternate ways need to be found to revolutionize both where we get our energy from, and how we distribute it. The infrastructure required alone for the transportation of all manners of alternative energies are problematic and wasteful at best. That is where room-temperature superconductors come in (again, I will save that for another post). However, I want to briefly talk about what progress humankind is making in the elusive process of nuclear fusion. Now let me preclude this with a theoretical warning. Fusion according to most laws of thermodynamics is impossible. The first Law of Thermodynamics (in accordance with the Law of the Conservation of Energy) states simply that energy cannot be created or destroyed. That means that whatever energy you put into or remove from a system, you are left with the same energy in the other position (If i put 1000 J of energy into a system, the system now has a maximum of 1000 J of energy in addition to its current energy). That being said, a nuclear fusion process in essence suggests that it can produce more power and energy than it took to initiate. There may be other forces at play in this case, but we will not know until we find out (how's that for classic Scientific Method? And no, cold fusion does not count towards proof.).
So what are we doing now about learning the secrets of fusion? If you don't know already, the sun is essentially one unbelievably huge mass that is undergoing fusion processes. If done right, fusion can be self-sustaining (at least to an extent). You should have some concept of what a black hole is, or a supernova, but the point is that stars collapse through a supernovae process and then basically collapse into a black hole (the reason why is not concrete, but there are some pretty good theories out there right now). But stars like the Sun will eventually run out of fuel. I'll post yet another article sometime in the future about the four-step self-sustaining fusion process of stars, why, and how they burn out (for more advanced science-y people). But the fusion process will consistently generate large amounts of energy. That is the plan for the (not really) famous National Ignition Facility. The entire goal of this cluster of buildings is to fire possibly the most powerful laser on this planet into a deuterium or similar hydrogen-nuclei based fuel and compress it to the point that the atoms fuse in a self-sustaining reaction. The laser used in the NIF was the first to break the 1 MJ barrier (1 million Joules of energy) in 2009. [To give you an idea, 1 MJ is about the energy contained in a 2000 pound car moving at about 100 mph. But in a photon. Through complicated physics principles, a photon essentially has no mass. It has energy (in Joules) given by the equation E=hf (Planck's Postulate), but 1 MJ of energy in a very, very small particle becomes incredibly impressive, especially when considering that you don't necessarily feel individual photons. But you would feel a 1 MJ photon laser. It would be very painful.
The goal of this laser is to refract it through prismatic reflective mirrors around a sphere, and then again from evenly spaced points on the sphere inwards towards the middle, where the fuel is being kept. The problem with fusion is that it is millions of times harder than fission. Fission is splitting an atom's nucleus, releasing a large amount of energy. The neutrons from that nucleus hit surrounding nuclei, splitting them up, and causing a massive chain reaction that generates unbelievable amounts of force and energy. All from a group of atoms. Now whereas fission is outward movement of atoms and the atoms splitting up, fusion is the massive internal movement of atoms, with the goal of merging them into one big atom. This process is incredibly difficult (thanks to quantum chromodynamics), so the energy required to push all of the atoms together is hard to control and very unwieldy. The sphere and refracting mirrors must be perfect aligned. Leaving a gap in the compression force will force the atoms out of the hole like bullets out of a minigun. The force must also be in an adiabatic system, meaning whatever temperature generated within the fuel capsule must not have time to escape to the environment, as it will upset the whole balance, so the force has to be strong, precise, and fast. The process in itself is so difficult that the project essentially was abandoned until improvements could be made (which could not and still cannot be made due to a lack of budget and outside support). If the project were to fully succeed though, the energy to initiate it would supposedly be less than the energy that the process produces (again, violating Thermodynamics). However, it would be clean, powerful, and almost limitless.
So that's all I will write for tonight. I thank you all for being patient with me as I dealt with numerous outside things and hopefully you will be coming back soon. Expect another update soon though!
Thanks once again,
--J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)