Author: rolcott

Born and raised in Chicago, schooled in WI and NJ and WI (again), one-time Chem professor, one-time Massage Therapist, one-time mainframe Performance Analyst, one-time husband of Val, two-time Daddy and two-time Grampa, long-time enthusiast of Science and careful thinking.

Caged But Free

On By rolcottIn Astronomy, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Afternoon coffee time. Cal waves a handful of astronomy magazines at us as Cathleen and I enter his shop. “Hey, guys, there’s a ton of black hole stuff in the news all of a sudden.”

Cathleen plucks a scone from the rack. “Not surprised, Cal. James Webb Space Telescope looks harder and deeper than we ever could before and my colleagues have been feasting on the data. Black holes are highly energetic so the most extreme ones show up well. The Hubble and JWST folks find new extremes every week.”

Cal would be disappointed if I didn’t ask. “So what’s the new stuff in there?”

<flipping through the magazines> “This seems to be quasar jet month. We’ve got a new champion jet and this article says M87’s quasar makes novas.”

“Remind me, Cathleen, what’s a quasar?”

“A quasi‑stellar object, Sy, except we now know it’s a galaxy with a supermassive black hole—”

“I thought they all had super‑massives.”

“Most do, but these guys are special. For reasons researchers are still arguing about, they emit enormous amounts of energy, as much as a trillion average stars. Quasar luminosity is more‑or‑less flat all across the spectrum from X-rays down as low as we can measure. Which isn’t easy, because the things are so far away that Universe expansion has stretched their waves by z‑factors of 6 or 8 or more. We see their X‑ray emissions in the infrared range, which is why JWST’s optimized for infrared.”

“What does ‘flat’ tell you?”

“Sy’d give a better answer than I would. Sy?”

“Fun fact, Cal. Neither atoms nor the Sun have flat spectra and for the same reason: confinement. Electromagnetic waves come from jiggling charges, right? In an atom the electron charge clouds are confined to specific patterns centered on the nucleus. Each pattern holds a certain amount of energy. The atom can only move to a different charge pattern by emitting or absorbing a wave whose energy matches the difference between the pattern it’s in and some alternate pattern. Atomic and molecular spectra show peaks at the energies where those transitions happen.”

“But the Sun doesn’t have those patterns.”

“Not in the stepped energy‑difference sense. The Sun’s made of plasma, free electrons and nuclei all bouncing off each other, moving wherever but confined to the Sun’s spherical shape by gravity. Any particle that’s much more or less energetic than the local average eventually gets closer to average by exchanging energy with its neighbors. Free charged particles radiate over a continuous, not stepwise, spectrum of energies. The free‑particle combined spectrum has a single peak that depends on the average temperature. You only get flat spectra from systems that aren’t confined either way.”

“What I get from all that is a jet’s flat spectrum says that its electrons or whatever aren’t confined. But they must be — the things are thin as a pencil for thousands of lightyears. Something’s gotta be holding them together but why no peaks?”

“Excellent question, Cal. By the way, jets can be even longer than you said. I’ve read about your champion jet. It extends 23 million lightyears, more than a hundred times the width of the Milky Way galaxy. Straight as a string, no kinks or wiggles during a billion years of growth. I think what’s going on is that the charged particles are confined side‑to‑side somehow but they’re free to roam along the jet’s axis. If that’s the case, the flat‑spectrum light ought to be polarized. I’m sure someone is working on that test now. Your thoughts, Sy?”

“As a physicist I’m interested in the ‘somehow.’ We only know of four forces. The distances are too big for weak and strong nuclear forces. Gravity’s out, too, because it acts equally in all directions, not just crosswise to the axis. That leaves electromagnetic fields in some super‑strong self‑reinforcing configuration. The particles must be spiraling like mad about that central axis. I’ll bet that explains Cal’s quasar galaxy concentrating novae close to its SMBH jet axis. A field that strong could generate enough interference to wreak havoc on an unstable star’s plasma.”

Hubble’s view of the M87 galaxy and jet
Credit NASA and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

~ Rich Olcott

The Importance of Saving Data

On By rolcottIn General: Serious Stuff, Uncategorized1 Comment
  • A repost from 8 years ago, but it’s become timely again. Eight years ago my concern was data related to Public Health and animal welfare. Subsequent event proved that concern was well‑founded. This time around the climate and Public Health issues are still with us but the likelihood of ideological meddling spreads much more broadly, to research related to psychoactives, guns, citizenship status and more. Forewarned is forearmed.

Sorry, but I’ve got to break into my normal Monday-morning stream to spread this around.  It’s a ProPublica document (click on the link to pull down a copy) detailing safe ways to leak information.

When I first heard about the data-stashing “parties” I thought it was something of an over-reaction.  Climate scientists and students organizing a massive effort to copy important data out of government files in case the new Administration decided to cover it all up somehow.

I’ve changed my mind.

What changed it was USDA’s suddenly blocking access to their animal welfare database, the one that keeps inspection records on research labs, companies, zoos, circuses, and animal transporters and how well they adhere to the Animal Welfare Act.

The agency said in a statement that it revoked public access to the reports “based on our commitment to being transparent …”  Being transparent by blocking information — there’s a certain Orwellian flavor to that, but it gets better.

I followed this article‘s link to see the original statement.  Well, I tried to follow it.  FireFox flat-out refused to show me the page because “Your connection is not secure. The owner of acis.aphis.educ.usda.gov has configured their website improperly.”  The error code was “SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER.” Funny that an official .gov site mucked up its security certificate.

Then I tried Microsoft’s  edge browser, which has less alert security than my beefed-up FireFox.  edge showed me an imposing and somewhat threatening USDA e-Login page including the statements that “Unauthorized or improper use of this system may result in disciplinary action, as well as civil and criminal penalties…. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communications or data transiting or stored on this information system…. Your consent is final and irrevocable…”

disappearing-lorem-ipsum

All this before Mr Sonny Perdue III is confirmed as the new Secretary of Agriculture. That name rings a bell, right?  Yeah, Perdue Farms, the country’s #3 poultry farmer. It’s hard not to connect dots to the Department suddenly wanting to hide farm inspection records.

So, it’s now pretty clear that we can expect other government-funded databases to disappear without warning, especially databases even remotely related to climate change, drug safety, water supply degradation, … you know, the things that there are regulations about that get in the way when your object is to maximize profits.

So — if you’re in science and you have possession of or access to data (databases, files, whatever) that might be in jeopardy

  1. Get it to an offsite and secure backup ASAP
  2. When/if it becomes clear that your or the public’s access to that data is about to be restricted, take one or more of the actions laid out in the ProPublica document.

Sometimes it’s rational to be paranoid.

~~ Rich Olcott

The Spaghettification Zone

On By rolcottIn Physics: Newton and Gravity, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Vinnie’s still wincing. “That neutron star pulling all the guy’s joints apart — yuckhh! So that’s spaghettification? I thought that was a black hole thing.”

“Yes and no, in that order. Spaghettification’s a tidal phenomenon associated with lopsided gravity fields, black holes or otherwise. You know what causes the tides, of course.”

“Sure, Sy. The Sun pulls up on the water underneath it.”

“That’s not quite it. The Sun’s direct‑line pull on a water molecule is less than a part per million of the Earth’s. What really happens is that the Sun broadly attracts water molecules north‑south east‑west all across the Sun‑side hemisphere. There’s a general movement towards the center of attraction where molecules pile up. The pile‑up’s what we call the tide.”

“What explains the high tide on the other side of the Earth? You can’t claim the Sun pushes it over there.”

“Of course not. It goes back to our lopsided taste of the Sun’s gravitational field. If it weren’t for the Sun’s pull, sea level would be a nice round circle where centrifugal force balances Earth’s gravity. The Sun’s gravity puts its thumb on the scale for the near side, like I said. It’s weaker on the other side, though — balance over there tilts toward the centrifugal force, makes for a far‑side bulge and midnight tides. We get lopsided forces from the moon’s gravity, too. That generates lunar tides. The solar and lunar cycles combine to produce the pattern of tides we experience. But tides can get much stronger. Ever hear of the Roche effect?”

“Can’t say as I have.”

“Imagine the Earth getting closer to the Sun but ignore the heat. What happens?”

Cygnus X-1 Illustration
Credit: NASA, CXC, Melissa Weiss (CXC)

“Sun‑side tides get higher and higher until … the Sun pulls the water away altogether!”

“That’s the idea. In the mid‑1800s Édouard Roche noticed the infinity buried in Newton’s F=GMm/r² equation. He realized that the forces get immense when the center‑to‑center distance, r, gets tiny. ‘Something’s got to give!’ he thought so he worked out the limits. The center‑to‑center force isn’t the critical one. The culprit is the tidal force which arises from the difference in the gravitational strength on either side of an object. When the force difference exceeds the forces holding the object together, it breaks up.”

“Only thing holding the ocean to Earth is gravity.”

“Exactly. Roche’s math applies strictly to objects where gravity’s the major force in play. Things like rubble‑pile asteroids like Bennu and Dimorphos or a black hole sipping the atmosphere off a neighboring blue supergiant star. We relate spaghettification to rubble piles but it can also compete with interatomic electronic forces which are a lot stronger.”

“You’re gonna get quantitative, right?”

“Of course, that’s how I operate.” <tapping on Old Reliable’s screen> “Okay, suppose Niven’s guy Shaffer is approaching some object from far away. I’ve set up tidal force calculations for some interesting cases. Turns out if you know or can estimate an object’s mass and size, you can calculate its density which is key to Roche’s distance where a rubble pile flies apart. You don’t need density for the other thresholds. Spagettification sets in when tidal force is enough to bend a molecule. That’s about 500 newtons per meter, give or take a factor of ten. I estimated the rip‑apart tidal force to be near the tensile strength of the ligaments that hold your bones together. Sound fair?”

“Fair but yucky.”

“Mm‑hm. So here’s the results.”

“What’s with the red numbers?”

“I knew you’d ask that first. Those locations are inside the central object so they make no sense physically. Funny how Niven picked the only object class where stretch and tear effects actually show up.”

“How come there’s blanks under whatever ‘Sgr A*’ is?”

“Astronomer‑ese for ‘Sagittarius A-star,’ the Milky Way’s super‑massive black hole. Can’t properly calculate its density because the volume’s ill‑defined even though we know the Event Horizon’s diameter. Anyhow, look at the huge difference between the Roche radii and the two thresholds that affect chemical bonds.”

“Hey, Niven’s story had Shaffer going down to like 13 miles, about 20 kilometers. He’d’ve been torn apart before he got there.”

“Roughly.”

~~ Rich Olcott

Stretch

On By rolcottIn Physics: Newton and Gravity, Space Travel, Uncategorized2 Comments

It’s a chilly day as I take my favorite elevator up to my office on the Acme Building’s 12th floor. Vinnie’s on my sofa, reading an old paperback. “Morning, Sy. Whaddaya think of Larry Niven?”

“One of the grand old men of hard science fiction. I gather you’re reading something of his there?”

“Yup, been bingeing on his Known Space series. His Neutron Star short story here won a Hugo back in 1967. It’s got so many numbers I wonder how good they are.”

“Probably pretty good. He and Heinlein both enjoyed showing off their celestial mechanics chops. What numbers stick out to you? Wait, what’s the story line again?”

“Story line? Most of Niven’s shorts were puzzles. When he had a good one he’d wrap some hokey story around it. This one, there’s a magical space ship that’s supposed to be invulnerable. Says here nothing can get through the hull, ‘no kind of electromagnetic energy except visible light. No kind of matter, from the smallest subatomic particle to the fastest meteor’ except something reached in and squashed two people to death in the nose of their ship. Our hero Mr Shaeffer’s in a ship just like theirs and has to figure out what the something was before it gets him, too.”

“Ah. What numbers did Niven give us?”

“Shaeffer’s ship was heading towards a neutron star. Lessee… ah, says the star’s mass is 1.3 times the Sun’s, diameter’s about 12 miles, and the ship’s on a fast in‑and‑out orbit, closest approach just a mile above the surface. Oh, and early on he drifts forward like something’s pulling on him but not on the ship. What does that tell you?”

“Enough to solve the puzzle, not enough to check his numbers. Anything about speed?”

“Mmm, he says the ship popped into the system a million miles out and it’d take 12 hours to reach the close‑approach point. The average speed’s just arithmetic, right?”

“Not really. A simple average doesn’t take account of acceleration changes or relativity effects. It’s easier and more accurate to apply conservation of energy. Okay with you if I assume the ship ‘pops into the system’ with zero velocity relative to the star and then free‑falls towards it?”

“That fits with the story, mostly.”

“Good. So right after the pop‑in” <tapping on Old Reliable’s screen> “the ship’s gravitational potential energy is ‑1.08×105 joules/kilogram—”

“Negative?”

“It’s defined as the potential energy Shaeffer’d gave up en route from infinitely far away. At 13 miles from the star’s center, that’s zoomed to ‑8.3×109 J/kg. The potential energy’s converted to kinetic energy ½mv² except we’re talking per kilogram so m is 1.0 and the velocity is —whoa!— 129 thousand kilometers/second. That’s 43% of lightspeed!”

“Well, Shaeffer did see the background stars shift blue even before he got deep into the gravity well. So, how about Niven’s 12‑hour, million‑mile claim?”

“That distance in that time works out to 37 miles per second, way less than lightspeed’s 186 000. Shaeffer was dawdling. You need calculus to figure the actual travel time — integrate 1/v between here and there. Ugly problem to solve manually but Old Reliable’s up to it. Given the appropriate orbit equation and the numbers we’ve worked out so far, Old Reliable says the trip should have taken him about 17 seconds.”

“HAW! I knew something seemed off. Wait, you said you’d solved the puzzle. What’s your answer?”

“Tides. That’s what moved him forward relative to the ship.”

“Yeah, that’s what Niven wrote, but I don’t see why what Shaeffer did saved him.”

“What did Shaeffer do?”

“Spread-eagled himself across a gangway at the ship’s center of gravity.”

“Brilliant — minimized his thickness along the star‑to‑ship line. Gravity’s pull on his sternum wasn’t much different from the pull on his spine. If he’d oriented himself perpendicular to that, his feet would feel a stronger pull than his head would have. Every transverse joint from neck to ankles would crackle or even tear. Talk about chiropractic.”

Vinne winces. “Why does thickness matter?”

“Tidal force reflects how center‑to‑center force changes with distance. Center‑to‑center force rises with 1/r². Tidal force goes up as 1/r³. Cube grows faster than square. Small r, big tides.”

~ Rich Olcott

Competing Curves

On By rolcottIn Mathematics, Physics: Fundamentals, UncategorizedLeave a comment

It’s still October but there’s a distinct taste of oncoming November in the air — grey, gusty with a moist chill as I step into Cal’s coffee shop. “You’re looking a bit grumpy, Cal.”

“Sure am, Sy. Some lady come in here, wanted pumpkin spice. The nerve! I sell good honest high‑quality coffee, special beans and everything, no goofy flavors. You want peppermint or apple brown betty, go down to the mermaid place. Here’s your mugfull, double‑dark as always. By the way, fair warning — Richard Feder’s in town and looking for you. He’s at that corner table.”

“Thanks, Cal.” <sound of footsteps> “Morning, Mr Feder. How’d things go in Fort Lee?

“Nicely, nicely… I got a question, Moire.”

“Of course you do.”

“I been reading your stuff, you had a graph in one post looks just like the graph in a different post. Here, I printed ’em out. What’s up with that?”

“But they plot entirely different things, brightness against distance in one, atom loss against time in the other, completely different equations.”

“Yeah, yeah, but the shapes are the same I don’t care you say they got different equations. Look, they even both go through the same points at x=2 and 4. What’re you trying to pull here?”

“Not pulling anything. Those two curves are similar, yes, but they’re not identical.” <quickly building charts on Old Reliable> “Here, I’ve laid them both on the same axis. For good measure I’ve extended the x‑axis into a second panel with a stretched‑out y‑axis. What do you see?”

“Well, the orange one goes up and stops but it looks like the blue one’s headed for the sky.”

“It is. But where on the x-axis do those things happen?”

“Zero and one. Okay so the blue line squoze in a little.”

“How about out there at the x=8 end? Looks like they’re close, I’ll grant you, but check the y‑values at at the left of the second panel.”

“Uhh… Looks like blue’s four times higher than orange. Then the orange line flattens out but the blue line not so much.”

“Mm‑hm. So they behave differently at that end, too.”

“Yeah, but what about in the middle here” <jabs finger at Old Reliable’s screen> “where they’re real close and even cross over each other a couple times and you could just draw a straight line?”

“You’ve put your finger on something that challenges every theoretician and research experimentalist who works in a quantitative field. How do you connect the dots? Sure, you can eyeball a straight line through observed points sometimes, there are even statistical techniques for locating the best possible straight line, but is a straight line even appropriate? Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not, and often we don’t know.”

“How can you not know? Everything starts with a straight line, shortest distance between two points, right?”

“Only if they’re the right points. Real observations are always uncertain. Lenses are never perfect, adjustment screws have a little bit of play, detector pixels are larger than a perfect point would be, whatever. Good experimentalists put enormous amounts of time and care into eliminating or at least controlling for every imaginable error source, but perfect measurements just don’t happen.”

“So it’ll be a fuzzy straight line.”

“For some range of ‘fuzzy’, mm‑hm. Now we get into the theory issues. We’ve already seen the simplest one — range of validity. Your straight‑line approximation might be good enough for some purposes in the x‑range between 2 and 4, but things get out of hand outside of that range.”

“Okay, in graphs. But these two curves both look good. Why choose one over the other?”

“That’s where theory and data collude. Sometimes theories tell us what data to look for, sometimes the data challenges us to develop an explanatory theory, sometimes we just try curve after curve until we find one that works across the full range that experiment can reach but we don’t know why. What’s exciting is when we get to use the data to determine which of several competing theories is the correct one. Or least incorrect.”

“I got other ways to get excited.”

“Of course you do.”

~~ Rich Olcott

A Quick Email Note

On By rolcottIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

To those who subscribe to this blog via email —

I’ve come to realize a couple of things about how WordPress (the software this blog sits on top of) handles what you receive in your Inbox.

First, every post I build includes some theme‑related artwork as a “Featured Image” up top. The image appears above the title when you look at the post online, but it’s not included in the emails. At all. Worse (from the image’s point of view), how much of the FI you see depends on whether you’re using your phone, a tablet, or full‑screen or partial window on a deskside computer. When I figured that out I started sticking a second, smaller copy of the image onto the bottom of the post. That way everyone sees some version of the artwork, like this one that should have gone on the bottom of the 14 Oct 2024 post (The Oldest Clock Ticks Slowest):

Second, WordPress recently enhanced its offering with an Expand On Click option. I’ve been selecting that for charts, calculations and such so they don’t take up a lot of screen space but readers can get a bigger view by clicking on the small version. Except that operation doesn’t work on the email distributions. I hope they’ll extend that functionality Real Soon Now.

In the meantime, if the emailed post you see has a chart or side‑bar that’s too small to read, please click on the post’s title. That’s a link that should transfer activity to your browser, then take you to the corresponding online post where you can click on the too‑small item to see the larger version.

And thanks for your interest in Hard Science.

~ Rich Olcott

The Oldest Clock Ticks Slowest

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Chemistry, UncategorizedLeave a comment

<Cliff‑hanger Cathleen strikes again> “How can you even measure a 2‑million year half‑life?”

Kareem’s right back at her. “What’s a half‑life?”

“Start a clock, weigh a sample, wait around for a while and then weigh it again to see how much is still there. When half of it’s gone, stop the clock and you’ve measured a half‑life. Simple.”

“Simple but not that simple or maybe a bit simpler. For one thing, you don’t have to wait for a full half‑life. For spontaneous radioactivity, all you have to know is the interval and whatever fraction disappeared. There’s a nice equation that ties those two to the half‑life.”

“Spontaneous? Like there’s another kind?”

“Stimulated radioactivity. That’s what nuclear reactors do — spew neutrons at uranium‑235 atoms, for instance, transmuting them to uranium‑236 so they’ll split into krypton and barium atoms and release energy and more neutrons. How often that happens depends on neutron concentration. Without that provoking push, the uranium nuclei would just split when they felt like it and that’s the natural half‑life.”

“Wait. I know that curve, it’s an exponential. Why isn’t e in the equation?”

“It could be. Would you prefer e-0.69315*t/half‑life? Works just as well but it’s clumsier. Base‑2 makes more sense when you’re talking halves. Usually when you say ‘exponential’ people visualize an increase. Here we’re looking at a decrease by a constant percentage rate but yeah, that’s an exponential, too. You get a falling curve like that from a Geiger counter and you’re watching counts per minute from someone’s thyroid that’s been treated with iodine‑131. Its 8‑day half‑life is slow enough to track that way. Really short half‑lives I don’t know much about; I care about the slow disintegraters that are either primordial or generated by some process.”

“Primordial — that means ‘back to the beginning’, which in your specialty would mean the beginning of the Solar System. We’re pretty sure the Sun’s pre‑planetary disk was built from dust broadcast by stars that went nova. Isotopes in the dust must be the primordial isotopes, right? Which ones are the other kind?”

“Mmm, aluminum‑26 is a good example. The half‑life equation still applies even for million‑year intervals. Half‑life of aluminum‑26 is about 0.7 million years and it decays to magnesium‑26. Whatever amount got here from the stars would have burnt down to a trillionth of that within the first 30 million years or so after arrival. Any aluminum‑26 we find today couldn’t be primordial. On the other hand, cosmic rays can smack a proton and neutron out of a silicon‑28 nucleus and voila! a new aluminum‑26. There’s a steady rain of cosmic rays out in space so there’s a steady production of aluminum‑26 out there. Not here on Earth, though, because our atmosphere blocks out most of the rays. Very nice for us geologists who can compare measured aluminum‑26 to excess magnesium‑26 to determine when a meteorite fell.”

“Excess?”

“Background magnesium is about 10% magnesium‑26 so we have subtract that to get the increment which came from aluminum‑26. A lot of the arguments in our field hinge on how much of which isotope is background or was background when a given rock formed. That’s one reason you see so much press about tiny but rugged zircons. They’re key to uranium‑lead dating. Crystallizing zirconium silicate doesn’t allow lead ions into its structure but it happily incorporates uranium ions. Uranium‑235 and uranium‑238 both decay to crystal‑trapped lead, but each isotope goes to a different lead isotope and with a different half‑life. The arithmetic’s simpler and the results are more definitive when you know that the initial lead content was zero.”

“So that aluminum‑magnesium trick’s not your only tool?”

“Hardly. The nuclear chemists have given us a long list of isotope chains, what decays to what with what half‑life and how much energy the radiating particle gets. Nuclei flit between quantum energy levels just like atoms and molecules do, except a spectrum of alpha or beta particles is a different game from the light‑wave spectrum. Tell me a radiated particle’s energy and I can probably tell you which isotope spat it out and disappeared.”

“Your ladder rungs are Cheshire Cat grins.”

~~ Rich Olcott

The Not-so-dangerous Banana

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Physics: Quantum Mechanics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“Y’know, Cathleen, both our ladders boil down to time. Your Astronomy ladder connects objects at different times in the history of the Universe. My Geology ladder looks back into the Solar System’s history.”

“As an astronomer I normally think of parsecs or lightyear distances but you have a point, Kareem. Edwin Hubble linked astronomical space with time. Come to think of it, my cosmologist colleagues work almost exclusively in the time domain, like ‘T=0 plus a few lumptiseconds.’ Billions of years down to that teeny time interval — how does your time ladder compare?”

“Lumptiseconds out to a hundred trillion times the age of the Universe. I win.”

“C’mon, Kareem.”

“No, really, Sy. My ladder uses isotopes. Every carbon atom has 6 protons in the nucleus, right? Carbon‑12 adds 6 neutrons and it’s stable but another isotope, carbon‑14, has 8 neutrons. It’s radioactive — spits out an electron and becomes stable nitrogen‑14 with 7 and 7. Really heavy isotopes like uranium‑238 spit out alpha particles.”

“Wait, if carbon‑14 spits out an electron doesn’t that make it a carbon ion?”

“Uh‑uh, Cathleen, the electron comes out of the nucleus, not the electron cloud. It’s got a hundred thousand times more energy than a chemical kick could give it. Sy could explain—”

“Nice try, Kareem, this is your geologic time story. Let’s stay with that.”

“If I must. So, the stable isotopes last forever, pretty much, but the radioactive ones are ticking bombs with random detonation times.”

“What’s doing the ticking? Surely there’s no springs or pendulums in there.”

“Quantum, Cathleen. Sy’s trying to stay out of this so I’ll give you my outsider answer. I picture every kind of subatomic particle constantly trying to leave every nucleus, butting their little heads bazillions of times a second against walls set up by the weak and strong nuclear forces. Nearly every try is a bounce‑back, but one success is enough to break the nucleus. Every isotope has its own personal set of parameters for each kind of particle — wall height, wall thickness, something like an internal temperature ruling how hard the particles hit the walls. The ticking is those head‑butts; the randomness comes from quantum’s goofy rules somehow. How’s that, Sy?”

Chart by Sjlegg, licensed under CC S-A 3.0 unported

“Good enough for jazz, Kareem. Carry on.”

“Right. So every kind of radioisotope is characterized by what kinds of particle it emits, how much energy each kind has after busting through a wall, and how often that happens in a given sample size. And the isotope’s chemistry, of course, which is the same as every other isotope that has the same number of protons. The general rule is that the stable isotopes have maybe a few more neutrons than protons but nearly every element has some unstable isotopes. The ones with too many neutrons, like carbon‑14, emit electrons as beta particles. They go up a square in the Periodic Table. Too few and they drop down by emitting a positron.”

“All those radioactive stand‑ins for normal atoms. Sounds ghastly. Why are we still here and not all burnt up?”

“First, when one of these atoms decays by itself it’s a lot of energy for that one atom, but the energy spreads out as heat across many atoms. Unless a bunch of atoms crumble at about the same time, there’s only a tiny bit of general heating. The major biological danger from radioactivity comes from spit‑out particles breaking protein or DNA molecules.”

“Mutated, not burnt.”

“Mm‑hm. Second, the radioactives are generally rare relative to their stable siblings. In many cases that’s because the bad guys, like aluminum‑26, have had time to decay to near‑zero. That banana you’re eating has about half a gram of potassium atoms but only 0.012% are unstable potassium‑40. Third, an isotope with a long half‑life doesn’t lose many atoms per unit time. A kilogram of tellurium‑128, for instance, loses 2000 atoms per year. The potassium‑40 in your banana has a half‑life of nearly 2 million years. Overall, it releases only about 1300 beta particles per second producing less than a nanowatt of heat‑you‑up power. Not to worry.”

“Two million years? How do you measure something that slow?”

~~ Rich Olcott

EROs Atop A Ladder

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“‘That’s where the argument started‘? That’s right up there with ‘Then the murders began.’ Cathleen Cliff‑hanger strikes again.”

<giggling> “Gotcha, Sy, just like always. Sorry, Kareem, we’ve had this thing since we were kids.”

“Don’t mind me, but do tell him what’s awry with the top of your galactic distance ladder.”

“I need to fill you in first about the ladder’s framework. We know the distances to special ‘standard candles’ scattered across the Universe, but there’s oodles of other objects that aren’t special that way. We can’t know their distances unless we can tie them to the candles somehow. Distance was Edwin Hubble’s big thing. Twenty years after Henrietta Swan Leavitt identified one kind of candle, Hubble studied the light from them. The farthest spectra were stretched more than the closest ones. Better yet, there was a strict relationship between the amount of stretch, we call it the z factor, and the candle’s distance. Turns out that everything at the intergalactic scale is getting farther from everything else. He didn’t call that expansion the Hubble Flow but we do. It comes to about 7% per billion lightyears distance. z connects candle spectrum, object spectrum and object distance. That lets us calibrate successive overlapping steps on the distance ladder, one candle type to the next one.”

“A constant growth rate — that’s exponential, by definition. Like compound interest. The higher it gets, it gets even higher faster.”

“Right, Kareem, except that in the past quarter-century we’ve realized that Hubble was an optimist. The latest data suggests the expansion he discovered is accelerating. We don’t know why but dark energy might have something to do with it. But that’s another story.”

“Cathleen, you said the distance ladder’s top rung had something to do with surface brightness. Surface of what?”

“Galaxies. Stars come at all levels of brightness. You can confirm that visually, at least if you’re in a good dark‑sky area. But a galaxy has billions of stars. When we assess brightness for a galaxy as a whole, the brightest stars make up for the dimmest ones. On the average it’ll look like a bunch of average stars. The idea is that the apparent brightness of some galaxy tells you roughly how many average stars it holds. In turn, that gives you a rough estimate of the galaxy’s mass — our final step up the mass ladder. Well, except for gravitational lensing, but that’s another story.”

“So what’s wrong with that candle?”

“We didn’t think anything was wrong until recently. Do you remember that spate of popular science news stories a year ago about giant galaxies near the beginning of time when they had no business to exist yet?”

“Yeah, there was a lot of noise about we’ll have to revise our theories about how the Universe evolved from the Big Bang, but the articles I saw didn’t have much detail. From what you’ve said so far, let me guess. These were new galaxy sightings, so probably from James Webb Space Telescope data. JWST is good at infra‑red so they must have been looking at severely stretched starlight—”

“z-factor near 8″

“— so near 13 billion lightyears old, but the ‘surface brightness’ standard candle led the researchers to claim their galaxies held some ridiculous number of stars for that era, at least according to current theory. How’d I do?”

“Good guess, Sy. That’s where things stood for almost a year until scientists did what scientists do. A different research group looking at even more data as part of a larger project came up with a simpler explanation. Using additional data from JWST and several other sources, the group concentrated on the most massive galaxies, starting with low‑z recent ones and working back to z=9. Along the way they found some EROs — Extremely Red Objects where a blast of infra‑red boosts their normal starlight brightness. The researchers attribute the blast to hot dust associated with a super‑massive black hole at each ERO’s center. The blast makes an ERO appear more massive than it really is. Guess what? The first report’s ‘ridiculously massive’ early galaxies were EROs. Can’t have them in that top rung.”

“Kareem, how about the rungs on your ladder?”

~~ Rich Olcott

One Step After Another

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Mid-afternoon, time for a coffee break. As I enter Cal’s shop, I see Cathleen and Kareem chuckling together behind a jumble of Cal’s distinctive graph‑lined paper napkins. “What’s the topic of conversation, guys?”

“Hi, Sy. Kareem and I are comparing ladders.”

I look around, don’t see anything that looks like construction equipment.

“Not that kind, Sy. What’s your definition of a ladder?”

“Getting down to definitions, eh, Kareem? Okay, it’s a framework with steps you can climb up towards something you can’t reach.”

“Well, there you go.”

“Not much help, Cathleen. What are you really bantering about?”

“Each of our fields of study has a framework with steps that let us measure something that’d be way out of reach without it.”

“You’ll appreciate this, Sy — our ladders even use different math. The steps on Cathleen’s ladder are mostly linear, mine are mostly exponential.”

“And they’re both finicky — you have to be really careful when using them.”

“And they’ve both recently had adjustments at the top end.”

“I can see the fun, I think. How about some specifics?”

They exchange a look, Kareem gestures ‘after you‘ and Cathleen opens. “Mine’s in astrometry, Sy, the precise recording of relative positions. Tycho Brahe’s numbers were good to a few dozen arcseconds—”

“Arcsecond?”

“1/60 of an arcminute which is 1/60 of a degree which is 1/360 of a full circle around the sky. Good enough in Newton’s day for him to explain planetary orbits, but we’ve come <ahem> a long way since then. The Gaia telescope mission can resolve certain objects down to a few microarcseconds but that’s only half the problem.”

“Let me guess — you have angles but you don’t have distances.”

“Bingo. Distance is astrometry’s biggest challenge.”

“Wait, Newton’s Law of Gravity includes r as the distance between objects. For that matter, Kepler’s Laws use r² and r³. Couldn’t you juggle them around to evaluate r?”

“Nope. Kepler did ratios, not absolute values. Newton’s Law has r² but you can rewrite it as F ² = GMm/r² = G(M/r)(m/r), G times the product of two mass‑to‑distance ratios. Newton’s G is our least‑accurate physical constant and we don’t have good handles on either of those numerators. Before space flight we just had mass ratios like M/m. We only discovered the Moon’s absolute mass when we orbited it with spacecraft of known mass. That’s the lowest rung on our mass ladder. Inside the Solar System we go step by step with orbit ratios. Outside the system everything’s measured relative to Solar mass.”

“I’m getting the ladder idea. So how do you distances?”

“Lowest rung is parallax, like binocular vision. You look at something from two different points a known distance apart. Measure the angle between the sight‑lines. Figure the triangles to get the something’s distance. The earliest example I know of was in the mid‑1700s when astrometers thousands of miles apart on Earth watched Venus cross the Sun’s disk. Each recorded the precise time they saw Venus touch the Sun’s disk. Given the time shift and the on‑Earth distance, some trigonometry gave them the Earth‑Venus distance. That put a scale to Newtonian orbital diagrams. Parallax across the width of Earth’s orbit yielded stellar distances out to thousands of lightyears with Hubble. We expect ten times better from Gaia.”

“That gets you maybe across the Milky Way. What about farther out?”

“Several ingenious variations on the parallax idea, but mostly standard candles.”

“Candles?”

“Suppose you measure the brightness of a candle that’s a known distance away and there’s an equally luminous candle some unknown distance away. Measured brightness falls as the square of the distance, so if the second candle appears half as bright it’s four times the distance and so on. Climbing the cosmic distance ladder is going from one kind of uniformly‑luminous candle to another kind farther away.”

“Such as?”

“We know how brightness relates to bright‑dim‑bright cycle time for several types of variable stars. That gets us out to 30 million lightyears or so. Type I‑a supernovas act as useful candles out to a billion lightyears. Beyond that we can use galaxy surface brightness. That’s where the recent argument started.”

~ Rich Olcott

  • Thanks to Ken Burke for mentioning tellurium‑128’s septillion‑year half‑life.