Category: Physics

Directional Reset

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Planetary Science, Physics: Newton and Gravity, Uncategorized1 Comment

Professor of Astronomy Cathleen O’Meara barges into Cal’s Coffee Shop. “There you are, Sy Moire! You numbskull! You addlepate! You … nincompoop! “

We’ve known each other since we were kids but I’ve rarely seen her this angry. “What have I done this time, Cathleen? I apologize, but what for?”

“That last post you put up. One of the hardest things to get across to planet science students is the Coriolis Effect. You got it exactly backwards, you lummox! Confused the be-jeepers out of half my students and it’s going to take a whole class period to unwind it.”

All those exclamation points sting when they strike home. “It did feel funny. All the sources I checked said Coriolis skews travel to the right in the northern hemisphere but I worked hard for hours on that video and it clearly shows ‘left‘.”

<sniff> “Stupid waste of time, chump! That video doesn’t show Coriolis.” <she grabs one of Cal’s graph-paper napkins and starts sketching> “Your balloon or whatever isn’t traveling north along Earth’s surface. It’s going out into space. That dark line tracks the thing’s shadow, or it would if you had the Sun behind it instead of off to the side. It has nothing at all to do with the cloud stream at the top of the hurricane and by the way those winds in the picture are outward, not inward as you’d’ve known if you’d’ve thought about for even a moment, blockhead! Here, look at a sideways view.”

“You’re saying my balloon’s not following the surface, it’s vectored away from the surface parallel to the north‑south axis. Also that the shadow points that I plotted on Earth trend westward only because the Earth turns west‑to‑east underneath the balloon. … Okay, I can see that. Goes so high up I guess it can’t be a balloon, huh?”

“Don’t try to deflect the conversation, nitwit. Figure out what you got wrong and put up a correction post that gives a proper account of Coriolis. Sorry, Cal, I’ll need my coffee in a sippy‑cup. Gotta go revise my lesson plan, again.”

She grabs her caffeine to‑go, flings me a final “Dolt! ” and storms out the door trailing a cloud of grumbles.

Vinnie’s open-mouthed. “Geez, Sy, she does have a temper.”

“You know it, Vinnie. Fortunately she saves it up for deserving occasions but don’t ever get her started on politics. So let’s see, what part of what I posted did I get right?”

“Well, there’s the part about Helsinki’s rotation around the Earth runs fewer kilometers per hour than Quito’s. That’s just fact, can’t argue with it.”

“Yeah, Mr Moire, and there’s Conservation of Momentum.”

“Right, Jeremy.” Synapses connect in my head. “Got it! Vinnie, what’s the rule between speed and orbit size?”

“The closer the faster. The Moon’s a quarter‑million miles away, takes a month to go round the Earth; the ESS is 250 miles up, circles us every 90 minutes. If you’re in some orbit and wanna go lower, you gotta speed up. Took me an hour to convince Larry that’s the way it works. He was all about centrifugal force forcing you outward, but if you want to get deeper in the gravity well you need the extra speed to balance the extra gravity.”

“That’s the rule for space orbits, alright, but things work exactly the opposite for travel on the surface of a rotating sphere. Gravity pulls centerward with the same strength everywhere so gravity’s not what balances the centrifugal force.”

“What does?”

“Geometry. In space orbits, velocity and kinetic energy increase toward the core. On a sphere’s surface, the highest velocity is farthest away from the rotational axis, at the equator. Velocity falls off to zero at both poles. Every latitude has its characteristic velocity and kinetic energy. Suppose you’re loose on Earth’s northern hemisphere and moving east too fast for your latitude. You’ll drift southward, away from the axis, until you hit a latitude that matches your speed. Meanwhile, because you’re moving east the landscape will flow westward beneath you. The blend is the Coriolis Effect.”

“So if I’m slower than my latitude I drift north and Coriolis sends me east?”

“Cathleen would agree, Jeremy.”

~ Rich Olcott

When It’s Not The Same Frame – Never Mind

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Planetary Science, Physics: Newton and Gravity, UncategorizedLeave a comment
  • Author‘s note — Please ignore everything below the separator line. It’s bogus. No excuses, it’s just wrong. I intend to embarrass Vinnie and Sy just as soon as I get my head straight. My apologies to every reader, especially teachers, that I’ve confused.

“Hey, Sy, I couldn’t help overhearing—”

<chuckle> “Of course not, Cal. Overhearing what?”

“When you said Quito goes round the world twice as fast as Helsinki. That can’t be true! Things would collide and we’d get all kinds of earthquakes and stuff.”

“Well, sure, Cal, if those two airports moved relative to each other. But they don’t, they’re stuck 10750 kilometers apart just like they’ve always been. I hated flying that route. Mountains to dodge at both ends, in between there’s bad weather a lot of the time and no place good to set down if something goes wrong. … Wait — different speeds — it’s frames again, ain’t it, Sy?”

“Exactly, Vinnie, even though it’s not black holes for a change. Relative to an inertial frame on the Earth’s surface, the Earth itself doesn’t move and neither does either city. Relative to a Sun‑centered frame, though, the Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours. In the Sun’s frame, Quito on Earth’s 40‑thousand kilometer Equator does 1666 kilometers per hour. Helsinki’s at 60° North. Its circle around the spin axis is only 20 thousand kilometers so its linear speed is 833 kilometers per hour even though it does the same 15 degrees per hour that Quito does.”

“Hi, Mr Moire. Welcome back. I couldn’t help overhearing—”

<chuckle> “Of course not, Jeremy. Overhearing what?”

“You talking about places on Earth moving different speeds. We just studied about that in Dr O’Meara’s planet science class but it’s still loose in my head. It has to do with why storms go counterclockwise, right?”

“It has everything to do with that, except the counterclockwise storms are only in the northern hemisphere. Southern hemisphere storms rotate the other way.”

“I got this, Sy. Bring up that movie you got on Old Reliable, the one that shows the northern hemisphere. Yeah, that one. Jeremy, some guy in a balloon is the dark line on his way from Kansas to the North Pole to meet Santa. In his frame the earth is moving left‑to‑right relative to his northbound course. See how the red star’s moving?”

“Yeah, it’s moving towards sunrise so his movie’s got the rotation right. Why Kansas?”

“‘Cause he’s got a good long shot over flatlands before any mountains or big lakes get in the way, okay? So, the other section of Sy’s movie is like it was shot from a satellite in geostationary orbit. In its frame the Earth is standing still, but the balloon guy’s swerving to his left which is west. Also counterclockwise.”

“Mmm, okay. So you’re saying that in our earthbound frame we see northerly winds getting twisted to their left which is west but it’s really the Earth turning under the atmosphere and that’s why hurricanes turn the way they do.”

“There are other ways to analyze it, guys.”

“Like what, Sy?”

“Let’s get back to Quito and Helsinki. In the northern hemisphere the latitude lines make shorter circles as you go north so your distance traveled per day gets smaller.”

“Makes sense, yeah.”

“Right. Your balloon guy’s at rest somewhere in the Earth’s frame before he starts his trip so the satellite sees him traveling eastward at say 1200 kilometers per hour. The atmosphere around him is doing about the same. Suppose he suddenly moves a few hundred kilometers north where the atmosphere’s moving significantly slower but he still has his original eastward momentum. What happens?”

“He gets slowed down.”

“Why?”

“Drag from the slower air. He dumps some of his momentum to the air molecules.”

“Conservation of Momentum does apply, Vinnie. That’s an explanation I see a lot in the pop‑sci press, but I’m not happy with it. An astronaut in a shuttlecraft going point‑to‑point across the airless Moon would see the same between‑frames contrast.”

“Oh! Newton’s First Law says you can’t change momentum unless an external force acts on you. So that’s the Coriolis Force, Mr Moire?”

“It’s related, Jeremy. Gravity restricts planet‑bound travelers to surface motion. Geometry and the force of gravity give that westward push in the planet’s frame to northbound objects in the northern hemisphere. The balloon guy and the astronaut don’t observe the Coriolis Effect unless they look out the window.”

~ Rich Olcott

When It’s Not The Same Frame

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Planetary Science, Physics: Newton and Gravity, UncategorizedLeave a comment
  • Author‘s note — Please ignore everything below the separator line. It’s bogus. No excuses, it’s just wrong. I intend to embarrass Vinnie and Sy just as soon as I get my head straight. My apologies to every reader, especially teachers, that I’ve confused.

“Hey, Sy, I couldn’t help overhearing—”

<chuckle> “Of course not, Cal. Overhearing what?”

“When you said Quito goes round the world twice as fast as Helsinki. That can’t be true! Things would collide and we’d get all kinds of earthquakes and stuff.”

“Well, sure, Cal, if those two airports moved relative to each other. But they don’t, they’re stuck 10750 kilometers apart just like they’ve always been. I hated flying that route. Mountains to dodge at both ends, in between there’s bad weather a lot of the time and no place good to set down if something goes wrong. … Wait — different speeds — it’s frames again, ain’t it, Sy?”

“Exactly, Vinnie, even though it’s not black holes for a change. Relative to an inertial frame on the Earth’s surface, the Earth itself doesn’t move and neither does either city. Relative to a Sun‑centered frame, though, the Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours. In the Sun’s frame, Quito on Earth’s 40‑thousand kilometer Equator does 1666 kilometers per hour. Helsinki’s at 60° North. Its circle around the spin axis is only 20 thousand kilometers so its linear speed is 833 kilometers per hour even though it does the same 15 degrees per hour that Quito does.”

“Hi, Mr Moire. Welcome back. I couldn’t help overhearing—”

<chuckle> “Of course not, Jeremy. Overhearing what?”

“You talking about places on Earth moving different speeds. We just studied about that in Dr O’Meara’s planet science class but it’s still loose in my head. It has to do with why storms go counterclockwise, right?”

“It has everything to do with that, except the counterclockwise storms are only in the northern hemisphere. Southern hemisphere storms rotate the other way.”

“I got this, Sy. Bring up that movie you got on Old Reliable, the one that shows the northern hemisphere. Yeah, that one. Jeremy, some guy in a balloon is the dark line on his way from Kansas to the North Pole to meet Santa. In his frame the earth is moving left‑to‑right relative to his northbound course. See how the red star’s moving?”

“Yeah, it’s moving towards sunrise so his movie’s got the rotation right. Why Kansas?”

“‘Cause he’s got a good long shot over flatlands before any mountains or big lakes get in the way, okay? So, the other section of Sy’s movie is like it was shot from a satellite in geostationary orbit. In its frame the Earth is standing still, but the balloon guy’s swerving to his left which is west. Also counterclockwise.”

“Mmm, okay. So you’re saying that in our earthbound frame we see northerly winds getting twisted to their left which is west but it’s really the Earth turning under the atmosphere and that’s why hurricanes turn the way they do.”

“There are other ways to analyze it, guys.”

“Like what, Sy?”

“Let’s get back to Quito and Helsinki. In the northern hemisphere the latitude lines make shorter circles as you go north so your distance traveled per day gets smaller.”

“Makes sense, yeah.”

“Right. Your balloon guy’s at rest somewhere in the Earth’s frame before he starts his trip so the satellite sees him traveling eastward at say 1200 kilometers per hour. The atmosphere around him is doing about the same. Suppose he suddenly moves a few hundred kilometers north where the atmosphere’s moving significantly slower but he still has his original eastward momentum. What happens?”

“He gets slowed down.”

“Why?”

“Drag from the slower air. He dumps some of his momentum to the air molecules.”

“Conservation of Momentum does apply, Vinnie. That’s an explanation I see a lot in the pop‑sci press, but I’m not happy with it. An astronaut in a shuttlecraft going point‑to‑point across the airless Moon would see the same between‑frames contrast.”

“Oh! Newton’s First Law says you can’t change momentum unless an external force acts on you. So that’s the Coriolis Force, Mr Moire?”

“It’s related, Jeremy. Gravity restricts planet‑bound travelers to surface motion. Geometry and the force of gravity give that westward push in the planet’s frame to northbound objects in the northern hemisphere. The balloon guy and the astronaut don’t observe the Coriolis Effect unless they look out the window.”

~ Rich Olcott

The Disk That Bent Space

On By rolcottIn Cosmology, Physics: Einstein, UncategorizedLeave a comment

<Author’s note — Side projects completed. Back to the fun stuff…>

“A cup of mud and a strawberry scone, please.”

“Sy! You’re back! Spent the winter months down in Bermuda with the onions and the eels, eh?”

“Not quite, Cal. A contract needed me on-site to monitor how well the company executed my recommendations. They did a pretty good job. They’re happy; I’m happy, paid and back home again. The weather here’s more to my liking.”

A hefty hand grabs my shoulder. “Hey, Sy, you’re back. Where ya been and how was it?”

“Sorry, Vinnie, my lips are sealed. You know how that works.”

“Yeah, I been there. Well, not there there, but. Anyways, I got a question I been saving up for you.”

“Always good to have a conversation-starter. Out with it.”

“Came from a Calvin And Hobbes comic strip some years ago but I saw it again on the internet. Calvin, that’s the kid who has a stuffed tiger named Hobbes but it talks, he’s sitting on the floor listening to something on his record player which tells you how old the strip is. His Dad comes over, points one finger at the disk’s edge and another at the label near the center. Got the picture?”

“Clear so far.”

“Dad leads off, ‘Both points make a complete circle in the same amount of time, right?‘ And the kid says, yeah, and Dad’s like, ‘But this point on the edge has to make a bigger circle than this point near the center so it has to move faster. Two points on the same disk move at different speeds but they both do the same revolutions per minute‘, and the kids goes to bed all frazzled.”

“Ah, the difference between angular speed and linear speed. The whole Earth turns once every 24 hours so Quito on the Equator does 1040 miles an hour but Helsinki up 60 degrees north goes half that.”

“Yeah, I know all about that stuff, I fly airplanes for a living, remember? That’s not my question.”

“Okay, what’s your question?”

“Suppose Calvin’s record speeds up until the label point’s going near the speed of light? What happens to the edge point?”

“Things get interesting, like Einstein-level interesting. On his way to General Relativity he did an important thought experiment about a disk like this. Sort-of like this.”

“Sort of?”

“Calvin’s disk represents a real material object, Einstein’s doesn’t. Objects made of matter have a limit to how fast you can spin them and it’s way short of lightspeed. Remember that time you were in here playing with that kid-toy top?”

“Gimme a sec… that was about centrifugal force, right, the kind that tries to shoot stuff straight out away from a spin center?”

“Sharp as ever, Vinnie. The centrifugal force per unit mass rises with the square of the rotation speed. Spin twice as fast, the force quadruples. Spin it faster and faster, eventually the outward force exceeds any material’s tensile strength. Chunks near the rim tear loose from the rest of the disk and it’s not a disk any more. Einstein imagined an infinitely strong disk that wouldn’t have that problem. In the kind of argument that good scientists love, Ehrenfest thought up a Special Relativity paradox that led Einstein to his big breakthrough.”

“A pair o’ docs, HAW!”

“Ha. Ha. We’ve talked about how Special Relativity says—”

“It’s gonna be frames again, ain’t it?”

“Relativity’s always about frames, Vinnie. Ehrenfest wrote that according to Special Relativity, the radius r of a disk doesn’t change when the disk rotates, but its circumference should be compressed to something smaller than 2πr which is non‑physical. Einstein replied that Ehrenfest had it backwards. In the disk’s rotating frame, you’d measure the circumference by seeing how many yardsticks you can pack around it.”

“Short yardsticks.”

“Millimeter-sticks, whatever. Einstein pointed out that when the disk spins, each yardstick gets shorter so you can pack in more yardsticks. Rotation doesn’t shrink the circumference, it expands it by warping space from a flat plane to a curved surface like a potato chip. Chasing that idea got him to curved space and General Relativity.”

~ Rich Olcott

  • Thanks to Alex, who asked the question.

Flipping An Edge Case

On By rolcottIn Chemistry, Physics: Quantum Mechanics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“Why’s the Ag box look weird in your chart, Susan?”

“That’s silver, Eddie. It’s an edge case. The pure metal’s diamagnetic. If you alloy silver with even a small amount of iron, the mixture is paramagnetic. How that works isn’t my field. Sy, it’s your turn to bet and explain.”

I match Eddie’s bet (the hand’s not over). “It’s magnetism and angular momentum and how atoms work, and there are parts I can’t explain. Even Feynman couldn’t explain some of it. Vinnie, what do you remember about electromagnetic waves?”

“Electric part pushes electrons up and down, magnetic part twists ’em sideways.”

“Good enough, but as Newton said, action begets reaction. Two centuries ago, Ørsted discovered that electrons moving along a wire create a magnetic field. Moving charges always do that. The effect doesn’t even depend on wires — auroras, fusion reactor and solar plasmas display all sorts of magnetic phenomena.”

“You said it’s about how atoms work.”

“Yes, I did. Atoms don’t follow Newton’s rules because electrons aren’t bouncing balls like those school‑book pictures show. An electron’s only a particle when it hits something and stops; otherwise it’s a wave. The moving wave carries charge so it generates a magnetic field proportional to the wave’s momentum. With me?”

“Keep going.”

“That picture’s fine for a wave traveling through space, but in an atom all the charge waves circle the nucleus. Linear momentum in open space becomes angular momentum around the core. If every wave in an atom went in the same direction it’d look like an electron donut generating a good strong dipolar magnetic field coming up through the hole.”

“You said ‘if’.”

“Yes, because they don’t do that. I’m way over‑simplifying here but you can think of the waves pairing up, two single‑electron waves going in opposite directions.”

“If they do that, the magnetism cancels.”

“Mm‑hm. Paired‑up configurations are almost always the energy‑preferred ones. An external magnetic field has trouble penetrating those structures. They push the field away so we classify them as diamagnetic. The gray elements in Susan’s chart are almost exclusively in paired‑up configurations, whether as pure elements or in compounds.”

“Okay, so what about all those paramagnetic elements?”

The angular portion of the lowest-energy spherical harmonic modes
Credit: Inigo.quilez, under CCA SA 3.0 license

“Here’s where we get into atom structure. An atom’s electron cloud is described by spherical harmonic modes we call orbitals, with different energy levels and different amounts of angular momentum — more complex shapes have more momentum. Any orbital hosting an unpaired charge has uncanceled angular momentum. Two kinds of angular momentum, actually — orbital momentum and spin momentum.”

“Wait, how can a wave spin?”

“Hard to visualize, right? Experiments show that an electron carries a dipolar magnetic field just like a spinning charge nubbin would. That’s the part that Feynman couldn’t explain without math. A charge wave with spin and orbital angular momentum is charge in motion; it generates a magnetic field just like current through a wire does. The math makes good predictions but it’s not something that everyday experience prepares us for. Anyway, the green and yellow‑orange‑ish elements feature unpaired electrons in high‑momentum orbitals buried deep in the atom’s charge cloud.”

“So what?”

“So when an external magnetic field comes along, the atom’s unpaired electrons join the party. They orient their fields parallel to the external field, in effect allowing it to penetrate. That qualifies the atom as paramagnetic. More unpaired electrons means stronger interaction, which is why iron goes beyond paramagnetic to ferromagnetic.”

“How does iron have so many?”

“Iron’s halfway across its row of ten transition metals—”

“I know where you’re going with this, Sy. It’ll help to say that these elements tend to lose their outer electrons. Scandium over on the left ionizes to Sc3+ and has zero d‑electrons. Then you add one electron in a d orbital for each move to the right.”

“Thanks, Susan. Count ’em off, Vinnie. Five steps over to iron, five added d‑electrons, all unpaired. Gadolinium, down in the lanthanides, beats that with seven half‑filled f‑orbitals. That’s where the strength in rare earth magnets arises.”

“So unpaired electrons from iron flip alloyed silver paramagnetic?”

“Vinnie wins this pot.”

~ Rich Olcott

A Cosmological Horse Race

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Multi-messenger, Cosmology, Physics: Einstein, Physics: Electromagnetism, UncategorizedLeave a comment

A crisp Fall day, perfect for a brisk walk around the park. I see why the geese are huddled at the center of the lake — Mr Feder, not their best friend, is on patrol again. Then he spots me. “Hey, Moire, I gotta question!”

“Of course you do, Mr Feder. What is it?”

“Some guy on TV said Einstein proved gravity goes at the speed of light and if the Sun suddenly went away it’d take eight minutes before we went flying off into space. Did Einstein really say that? Why’d he say that? Was the TV guy right? And what would us flying across space feel like?”

“I’ll say this, Mr Feder, you’re true to form. Let’s see… Einstein didn’t quite prove it, the TV fellow was right, and we’d notice being cold and in the dark well before we’d notice we’d left orbit. As to why, that’s a longer story. Walk along with me.”

“Okay, but not too fast. What’s not quite about Einstein’s proving?”

“Physicists like proofs that use dependable mathematical methods to get from experimentally-tested principles, like conservation of energy, to some result they can trust. We’ve been that way since Galileo used experiments to overturn Aristotle’s pure‑thought methodology. When Einstein linked gravity to light the linkage was more like poetry. Beautiful poetry, though.”

“What’s so beautiful about something like that?”

“All the rhymes, Mr Feder, all the rhymes. Both gravity and light get less intense with the square of the distance. Gravity and light have the same kinds of symmetries—”

“What the heck does that mean?”

“If an object or system has symmetry, you can execute certain operations on it yet make no apparent difference. Rotate a square by 90° and it looks just the same. Gravity and light both have spherical symmetry. At a given distance from a source, the field intensity’s the same no matter what direction you are from the source. Because of other symmetries they both obey conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. In the late 1890s researchers found Lorentz symmetry in Maxwell’s equations governing light’s behavior.”

“You’re gonna have to explain that Lorentz thing.”

“Lorentz symmetry has to do with phenomena an observer sees near an object when their speed relative to the object approaches some threshold. Einstein’s Special Relativity theory predicted that gravity would also have Lorentz symmetry. Observations showed he was right.”

“So they both do Lorentz stuff. That makes them the same?”

“Oh, no, completely different physics but they share the same underlying structure. Maxwell’s equations say that light’s threshold is lightspeed.”

“Gravity does lightspeed, too, I suppose.”

“There were arguments about that. Einstein said beauty demands that both use the same threshold. Other people said, ‘Prove it.’ The strongest argument in his favor at the time was rough, indirect, complicated, and had to do with fine details of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Half a century later pulsar timing data gave us an improved measurement, still indirect and complicated. This one showed gravity’s threshold to be with 0.2% of lightspeed.”

“Anything direct like I could understand it?”

“How about a straight‑up horse race? In 2017, the LIGO facility picked up a gravitational signal that came in at the same time that optical and gamma ray observatories recorded pulses from the same source, a colliding pair of neutron stars in a galaxy 130 million lightyears away. A long track, right?”

“Waves, not horses, but how far apart were the signals?”

“Close enough that the measured speed of gravity is within 10–15 of the speed of light.”

“A photo-finish.”

“Nice pun, Mr Feder. We’re about 8½ light-minutes away from the Sun so we’re also 8½ gravity-minutes from the Sun. As the TV announcer said, if the Sun were to suddenly dematerialize then Earth would lose the Sun’s orbital attraction 8½ minutes later. We as individuals wouldn’t go floating off into space, though. Earth’s gravity would still hold us close as the whole darkened, cooling planet leaves orbit and heads outward.”

“I like it better staying close to home.”

~ Rich Olcott

Why No Purple?

On By rolcottIn Chemistry, Physics: Light and RelativityLeave a comment

<ding/ding/ding> <yawn> “Who’s texting me at this time of night?”

This better be good.

Hi, Uncle Sy. Did I wake you up?

At this hour? Of course you did, Teena. What’s going on?

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize what time it is. I’ve been deep into my Chemistry homework. There’s a question here that I don’t understand and I thought you could help me with. Please?

Well, I’m awake. What’s the question?

This isn’t quite what they ask but it’s what I’m stuck on. Is energy stepwise or continuous?

Whoa! That’s not really an either‑or proposition. Energy is continuous, but the energy differences that atoms/molecules respond to are stepwise. You get continuous white light from hot objects like stars and welding torches.
If white light passes a hydrogen atom, the atom will only absorb certain specific frequencies (frequency is a measure of energy).

The rest bounce off, creating the atom’s…line spectrum?

Yes, except they don’t bounce off, they pass by.

The more energy/heat fire has, the further down the EM spectrum its light goes: red, orange, yellow, blue, white. Is that correct?

Mostly, though the usual sequence read ‘upward’ in energy is radio, microwave, infrared, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, ultraviolet, X-rays, gamma rays.
White is an even mixture of all frequencies.

I was focusing on the visible section for a reason.

Mmm?

So, there’s red, orange, yellow, and blue fire in order of how much heat it has, why does it skip purple and green? A normal fire can reach red, orange, yellow just fine with the only difference being heat, but why can’t fire be green or purple without throwing chemicals in it?

Ah, what you’re really looking at is variation in fuel/air mixture (and possibly which fuel — I’ll get to that).
A rich methane mixture (not much oxygen, like a shuttered Bunsen burner) doesn’t get very hot, has lots of unburnt carbon particles and looks orange. Add more oxygen and the flame gets hotter, no more soot particles, just isolated CO, CO2, and water molecules, each of which gets excited to flame temp and then radiates light but only at its own characteristic frequencies. Switch to acetylene fuel and the flame gets hotter still because C2H2+O2 reactions give off more energy per molecule than CH4+O2. Now you’re in plasma temperature range, where free electrons can emit whatever frequency they feel like.

How about sunsets and campfires?

Sunsets are a whole other thing — the sun’s white light is transformed in various ways as it filters through dust and such in the atmosphere. Anyway, no flame or atom/molecule excitation in a sunset

But it all comes down to how much energy the light source “has”, right? That’s what I think I remember from physics. And what about campfires? In the center of the fire you have blue flame, and the further from the center the closer to red flame you get, but it still skips green!

Yes, but in each of these cases the *source* is different — soot particles, excited molecules, plasma.

???

The campfire has several different processes going on. Close in, the heated wood emits various gases. The gases reacting with O2 *are* the flame, generally orange to yellow from excited molecules but you can get blue where the local ventilation forms a jet and brings in extra oxygen for an efficient flame. Further out it’s back to red-hot soot.

OK

To your original question — this is a hypothesis, but I suspect the particular atoms and molecules emitted from untreated burning wood simply don’t have any strong emissions lines in the green region. I know there aren’t for any hydrogen atoms — look up “Balmer series” in wikipedia.

Thanks for talking me through this. I understand it better now. Continuous spectrums come from hot electrons, but line spectrums come from different atoms or molecules. Right?

*spectra
Right.
As you said, you could throw in copper or sodium salts to get those blue and golden colors.

I figured there had to be some way to go about it – I’ve seen lots of green and gold (YAY CSU!) fireworks. G’night, Uncle Sy.

G’night, Teena.
Now get to bed.

~ Rich Olcott

  • Thanks to Alex, who wrote much of this.

A No-Charge Transaction

On By rolcottIn Cosmology, Crazy Theories, Physics: Light and Relativity, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“I ain’t done yet, Sy. I got another reason for Dark Matter being made of faster‑then‑light tachyons.”

“I’m still listening, Vinnie.”

“Dark Matter gotta be electrically neutral, right, otherwise it’d do stuff with light and that doesn’t happen. I say tachyons gotta be neutral.”

“Why so?”

“Stands to reason. Suppose tachyons started off as charged particles. The electric force pushes and pulls on charges hugely stronger than gravity pulls—”

“1036 times stronger at any given distance.”

“Yeah, so right off the bat charged tachyons either pair up real quick or they fly away from the slower‑than‑light bradyon neighborhood leaving only neutral tachyons behind for us bradyon slowpokes to look at.”

“But we’ve got un‑neutral bradyon matter all around us — electrons trapped in Earth’s Van Allen Belt and Jupiter’s radiation belts, for example, and positive and negative plasma ions in the solar wind. Couldn’t your neutral tachyons get ionized?”

“Probably not much. Remember, tachyon particles whiz past each other too fast to collect into a star and do fusion stuff so there’s nobody to generate tachyonic super‑high‑energy radiation that makes tachyon ions. No ionized winds either. If a neutral tachyon collides with even a high-energy bradyon, the tachyon carries so much kinetic energy that the bradyon takes the damage rather than ionize the tachyon. Dark Matter and neutral tachyons both don’t do electromagnetic stuff so Dark Matter’s made of tachyons.”

“Ingenious, but you missed something way back in your initial assumptions.”

“Which assumption? Show me.”

“You assumed that tachyon mass works the same way that bradyon mass does. The math says it doesn’t.” <grabbing scratch paper for scribbling> “Whoa, don’t panic, just two simple equations. The first relates an object’s total energy E to its rest mass m and its momentum p and lightspeed c.”

E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²

“I recognize the mc² part, that’s from Einstein’s Equation, but what’s the second piece and why square everything again?”

“The keyword is rest mass.”

“Geez, it’s frames again?”

“Mm‑hm. The (mc²)² term is about mass‑energy strictly within the object’s own inertial frame where its momentum is zero. Einstein’s famous E=mc² covers that special case. The (pc)² term is about the object’s kinetic energy relative to some other‑frame observer with relative momentum p. When kinetic energy is comparable to rest‑mass energy you’re in relativity territory and can’t just add the two together. The sum‑of‑squares form makes the arithmetic work when two observers compare notes. Can I go on?”

“I’m still waitin’ to hear about tachyons.”

“Almost there. If we start with that equation, expand momentum as mass times velocity and re‑arrange a little, you get this formula

E = mc² / √(1 – v²/c²)

The numerator is rest‑mass energy. The v²/c² measures relative kinetic energy. The Lorentz factor down in the denominator accounts for that. See, when velocity is zero the factor is 1.0 and you’ve got Einstein’s special case.”

“Give me a minute. … Okay. But when the velocity gets up to lightspeed the E number gets weird.”

“Which is why c is the upper threshold for bradyons. As the velocity relative to an observer approaches c, the Lorentz factor approaches zero, the fraction goes to infinity and so does the object’s energy that the observer measures.”

“Okay, here’s where the tachyons come in ’cause their v is bigger than c. … Wait, now the equation’s got the square root of a negative number. You can’t do that! What does that even mean?”

“It’s legal, when you’re careful, but interpretation gets tricky. A tachyon’s Lorentz factor contains √(–1) which makes it an imaginary number. However, we know that the calculated energy has to be a real number. That can only be true if the tachyon’s mass is also an imaginary number, because i/i=1.”

“What makes imaginary energy worse than imaginary mass?”

“Because energy’s always conserved. Real energy stays that way. Imaginary mass makes no sense in Newton’s physics but in quantum theory imaginary mass is simply unstable like a pencil balanced on its point. The least little jiggle and the tachyon shatters into real particles with real kinetic energy to burn. Tachyons disintegrating may have powered the Universe’s cosmic inflation right after the Big Bang — but they’re all gone now.”

“Another lovely theory shot down.”

~ Rich Olcott

Properties of Space

On By rolcottIn Cosmology, Physics: Electromagnetism, Physics: Waves, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Vinnie gives me the side‑eye. “Wait, Sy. Back there you said Maxwell got the speed of light from the properties of space. What does any of that even mean?”

“Do you remember Newton’s equation for the force of gravity between two objects?”

“Of course not. Lessee… the force’d be bigger when either one gets bigger, and it’d get smaller when the distance between ’em gets bigger and there’s some constant number to make the units right, right?”

“Close enough, it’s the distance squared. The equation’s F=Gm1m2/r². The G is the constant you mentioned. It does more than turn mass‑units times mass‑units divided by length‑units‑squared into force‑units. It says how many force‑units. For one pair of objects at a certain distance, turn the G‑dial up and you get more force. Make sense?”

“Yeah, that looks right.”

“The value of G sets the force‑distance scale for how two objects attract each other everywhere in the Universe. That value is a property of space. So is the fact that the value is the same in all directions.”

“Huh! Never thought of it like a scale factor. Space has other properties like that?”

“Certainly. Coulomb’s Law for the electrostatic force between two charged objects has the same basic structure, FE=–(q1q2/r²)/CE. In any units you like you replace the q‘s with object charge amounts and r with the distance between them. For each set of change‑ and distance‑units there’s a well‑researched value of CE to convert your charge and distance numbers into force‑units. Under the covers, though, CE is a scale factor that controls the range of the electrostatic force. It’s the same everywhere in the Universe and it’s completely independent of Newton’s gravity scale factor.”

“Hey, what about ‘like charges repel, opposites attract’?”

“That’s what the minus sign’s in there for. If the q‘s have the same charge, the force is negative, that’s repulsion; opposite charges make for positive, attractive force.”

“If there’s a CE for electric there’s gotta be a CM for magnetic.”

“Sort of. The electrostatic force doesn’t care about direction. Magnetism does care so the equation’s more complicated. You’re right, though, there is a similar universal scale factor we might as well call CM.”

<chuckle> “Electric, magnetic, I don’t suppose we could mix those two somehow for an electromagnetic scale factor?”

<grin> “Did you read ahead in the book? Yes we can, and Maxwell’s equations showed us how. If you multiply the two C‘s together, you get one over the square of the speed of light. Re‑arranging a little, c=√(1/CECM), so c, the electromagnetic scale factor for velocity, is based on those space properties. Einstein showed that no material object can have a velocity greater than c.”

“I’ll take your word for the arithmetic, but how does that combination make for a speed limit?”

“There’s an easy answer you’re not going to like — it’s a speed because the units come out meters per second.”

“That’s a cheat. I don’t like it at all and it doesn’t account for the limit part. Explain it with Physics, no fancy equations.”

“Tough assignment. Okay, typical waves have a displacement force, like wind or something pushing up on an ocean wave, that works against a restoring force, such as gravity pulling down. Electromagnetic waves are different. The electric component supplies the up force, but the magnetic component twists sideways instead of restoring down. The wave travels as a helix. The CE and CM properties determine how tightly it spirals through space. That’s lightspeed.”

“And the limit part?”

“Einstein maintained that anything that happens must follow the same rules for all observers no matter how each is moving. The only way that can be true is if space is subject to the Lorentz contraction √[1-(v/vmax)²] for some universal maximum speed vmax. Maxwell’s electromagnetism equations showed that vmax is c. Okay?”

“I suppose.”

~ Rich Olcott

  • * Vinnie hates equations even with regular letters, Greek letters make it worse. Hence my using CE and CM instead of the conventional ε0 and μ0 notation. Sue me.

Black, White And Wormy

On By rolcottIn Cosmology, Crazy Theories, Physics: Black Holes and Relativity, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“Whaddaya mean, Sy, if white holes exist? You just told me how they’re in the equations just like black holes.”

“Math gives us only models of reality, Vinnie. Remarkably good models, some of them, but they’re only abstractions. Necessarily they leave out things that might skew math results away from physical results or the other way around. Einstein believed his math properly reflected how the Universe works, but even so, he doubted that black holes could exist. He didn’t think it’d be possible to collect that much mass into such a small space. Two decades after he said that, Oppenheimer figured out how that could happen.”

“Oppenheimer like the A‑bomb movie guy?”

“Same Oppenheimer. He was a major physicist even before they put him in charge of the Manhattan Project. He did a paper in 1939 showing how a star‑collapse could create the most common type of black hole we know of. Twenty‑five years after that the astronomers found proof that black holes exist.”

“Well, if Einstein was wrong about black holes, why wasn’t he wrong about white holes?”

“We need another Oppenheimer to solve that. So far, no‑one has come up with a mechanism that would create a stand‑alone white hole. That level of stress on spacetime requires an enormous amount of mass‑energy in a tiny volume. Whatever does that must somehow do it with a time‑twist opposite to how a black hole is formed. Worse yet, by definition the white hole’s Event Horizon leaks matter and energy. The thing ought to evaporate almost as soon as it’s formed.”

“I heard weaseling. You said, ‘a stand‑alone white hole,’ like there’s maybe another kind. How about that?”

“Could be, maybe not, depending on who’s talking and whether or not they’re accounting for magnetic fields, neutrinos or quantum effects. The discussion generally involves wormholes.”

“Wormholes.”

“Mm-hm. Some cosmologists think that wormholes might bridge between highly stressed points in spacetime. Black hole or white, the stress is what matters. The idea’s been around nearly as long as our modern idea of black holes. No surprise, ‘wormhole’ was coined by John Archibald Wheeler, the same guy who came up with the phrases ‘black hole’ and ‘quantum foam’.”

“Quantum—. Nope, not gonna bite. Get back to white holes.”

“I’m getting there. Anyway, the relativity theory community embraced black holes, white holes and wormholes as primary tools for studying how spacetime works.”

“How’re they gonna do that? That squib Cal showed me said we’ve never seen a white hole.”

“Fair question. Last I heard, the string theory community confidently predicted 10500 different Universes with little hope of narrowing the field. In contrast, relativity theory is firmly constrained by well‑founded math, a century of confirmation from experimental tests and a growing amount of good black hole data. Perfectly good math says that wormholes and white holes could form but only under certain unlikely conditions. Those conditions constrain white holes like Oppenheimer’s conditions constrained forming a stellar‑size black hole.”

“So how do we make one?”

“We don’t. If the Universe can make the right conditions happen somewhere in spacetime, it could contain white holes and maybe a network of wormholes; otherwise, not. Maybe we don’t see them because they’ve all evaporated.”

“I remember reading one time that with quantum, anything not forbidden must happen.”

“Pretty much true, but we’re not talking quantum here. Macro‑scale, some things don’t happen even though they’re not forbidden.”

“Name one.”

“Anti‑matter. The laws of physics work equally well for atoms with positive or negative nuclear charge. We’ve yet to come up with an explanation for why all the nuclear matter we see in the Universe has the positive‑nucleus structure. The mystery’s got me considering a guess for Cathleen’s next Crazy Theories seminar.”

“Oh, yeah? Let’s have it.”

“Strictly confidential, okay?”

“Sure, sure.”

“Suppose the Big Bang’s chaos set up just the right conditions to make a pair of CPT‑twin black holes, expanding in opposite directions along spacetime’s time dimension. Suppose we’re inside one twin. Our time flows normally. If we could see into the other twin, we’d see inside‑out atoms and clocks running backwards. From our perspective the twin would be a white hole.”

“Stay outta that wormhole bridge.”

~ Rich Olcott