Category: Physics

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

A High-contrast Image

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

Vinnie clomps into my office. “Morning, Sy. I knew you weren’t busy ’cause there’s music playing.”

“Well, you’re right, I am between assignments. Yesterday another client called to say they’re cancelling my contract because their Federal grant was cut off. They had to let three grad students go, too. That was a project with good prospects for generating a couple of successful businesses. These zealots are eating our seed corn, Vinnie, and they’re burning down the silo.”

“I know the feeling, Sy. There’s a lot less charter flying to do these days. Nobody wants to do meetings when they don’t know what the rules will be next week.”

<deep sigh>
 <deep sigh>

“Oh, yeah, Sy. Why I came up here — what’s with white holes? Cal asked me about ’em ’cause a little squib in one of his astronomy magazines didn’t tell us much so now I’m curious.”

“Okay, tell me something you know about black holes.”

“We can’t see one, but we can see light from its accretion disc.”

“Fair enough. Something else.”

“A black hole’s what you get when a right‑size star collapses.”

“I like that ‘right‑size’ qualification. Too small or too big doesn’t work. White holes almost certainly can’t happen from a star collapse. What else?”

“I heard that ‘almost.’ Uhh… once you pass inside the Event Horizon, you can’t get out.”

“You can’t get inside a white hole’s Event Horizon.”

“Okay, that’s weird. Like it’s got a hard crust like black holes don’t?”

“Nope. A white hole’s Event Horizon’s a mathematical abstraction just like a black hole’s. Not a hard surface, just a boundary where time starts playing games.”

“Wait, we talked about time and the Event Horizon some time ago. If I remember right, we worked out that cause‑and‑effect runs parallel to time. Outside the Event horizon time’s not locked to any specific orientation in space. We can cause things to happen in any direction. Inside the Event Horizon’s sphere, both time and cause‑and‑effect point further in. You can’t make anything happen further out than wherever you are in there which is why light can’t escape, right?”

“Mostly. Anything inside the Horizon is bound to spiral inward toward the singularity. The journey could be slow or fast. There’s some disagreement on how long it would take, though — could be forever, could be forever near enough. Some current models say the Horizon’s geometric center is the infinitely distant future. Other models say, no, for a stellar‑collapse black hole it’s only beyond the age of the Universe.”

“Why not … oh, because the real black hole was born at a definite time so it can’t have an infinite future.”

“That’s about the size of it — both directions either finite or infinite. Physicists love to propose symmetries like that but I’m not willing to bet either way.”

“Black hole/white hole sounds like symmetry.”

“In a way it isn’t, in a way it is. Both varieties are solutions for Einstein’s equation about spacetime under—”

“Hold it, no equations, you know I hate those things. Anyway, how can two different holes solve one equation?”

“Solve x=√9.”

“Gotta be x=3.”

“Or minus‑3. They’re both right answers, right?”

“Mmm, yeah. Okay, that was arithmetic, not an equation, but why’d you give it to me at all?”

“To demonstrate plus‑or‑minus symmetry. Einstein’s equation tells how mass warps spacetime. The answers relate to square‑roots of summed squares like Pythagoras’ c=√(a²+b²). If you pick positive square roots the warping describes a black hole. The negative square roots give the warping for a white hole which behaves differently. Both kinds depend on intense gravitational fields arising from a singularity but a white hole’s cause‑and‑effect arrow points outward.”

“So that’s why you’re locked out? You can’t cause anything further in than you are?”

“Exactly. But it gets deeper. A black hole’s singularity, the one you can’t avoid if you’re inside its Event Horizon, is in the distant future. A white hole’s singularity, the one you can’t get to anyway, is in the distant past.”

“That’s why you said they can’t come from star collapses — the stars died too recent.”

“Mm-hm. If white holes exist at all, they probably were born in the Big Bang.”

~ Rich Olcott

A Carefully Plotted Tale

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

<chirp, chirp> “Moire here.”

“Hello, Mr Moire. Remember me?”

“Yes, I do, Walt. I hope your people were satisfied with what you brought them from our last meeting.”

“They were, which is why I’m calling. Buy you pizza at Eddie’s, fifteen minutes?”

“Make it twenty.”

We’re at the rear‑corner table, Walt facing both doors, naturally. “So, what’s the mysterious question this time?”

“Word on the street is that the CPT Law’s being violated. We want to know who’s involved, and what’s their connection with ChatGPT.”

Good thing I’ve just bit into my pizza so I can muffle my chuckle in my chewing. “What do you know about anti‑matter?”

“Inside‑out atoms — protons outside whizzing around electrons in the nucleus.”

“Common misconception. One proton has the mass of 1800 electrons. An atom built as you described would be unstable — the thing would fly apart. You’ve got anti‑matter’s charges arranged right but not the particles. Anti‑matter has negative anti‑protons in the nucleus and positrons, positive electrons, on the outside.”

<writing rapidly in his notebook> “You can do that? Just flip the sign on a particle?”

“No, positrons and such are respectable particles in their own right, distinct from their anti‑partners. Electric charge comes built into the identity. What’s important is, an anti‑atom behaves exactly like a normal atom does. Maxwell’s Equations and everything derived from them, including quantum mechanics, work equally well for either charge structure.”

“There’s a bit of Zen there — change but no‑change.”

“Nice. Physicists call that sort of thing a symmetry. In this case it’s charge symmetry, often written as C.”

“The C in CPT?”

“Exactly.”

“What about the P and T?”

“When someone says something is symmetrical, what do you think of first?”

“Right side’s a reflection of left side. Symmetrical faces look better but they’re usually less memorable.”

“Interesting choice of example. Anyway, reflection symmetry is important in common physical systems.”

“Classical Greek and Cambodian architecture; the Baroque aesthetic without the decorative frills.”

“I suppose so. Anyway, we call reflection symmetry Parity, or P for short.”

“And T?”

“Time.”

“Time’s not symmetrical. It’s always past‑to‑future.”

“Maybe, maybe not. In all our physical laws that deal with a small number of particles, you can replace t for time with –t and get the same results except for maybe a flipped sign. Newton’s Laws would run the Solar System in reverse just as well as they do forward.”

“But … Ah, ‘small number of particles,’ that’s your out. If your system has a large number of particles, you’re in chaos territory where randomness and entropy have to increase. Entropy increase is the arrow for one‑way time.”

“Good quote.”

“I’ve been in some interesting conversations. You’re not my only Physics source. So CPT is about Charge AND Parity AND Time symmetries. But you can’t simply add them together.”

“You multiply them. Technically, each of them is represented by a mathematical operator—”

“Step away from the technically.”

“Understood. This’ll be simpler. If a system’s atoms have positive nuclei, set C=1, otherwise set C=–1. If the system’s naturally‑driven motion is counterclockwise set P=1, otherwise P=–1. If time is increasing, set T=1, otherwise set T=–1. Okay?”

“Go on.”

“You can summarize any system’s CPT state by multiplying the prevailing symmetry values. The product will be either +1 or –1. The CPT Law says that in any universe where quantum mechanics and relativity work, one CPT state must hold universe‑wide.”

“Make it real for me.”

“You know the Right-hand Rule for electromagnetism?”

“Grab the wire with your right hand, thumb pointing along the current. Your fingers wrap in the direction of the spiraling magnetic field.”

“Perfect. Suppose C*P*T=+1 for this case. Now reverse the charge, making C=–1. What happens?”

“Ssss… The magnetic spin flips orientation. That’s a reflection operation so P=–1. The C*P*T calculation is (+1)*(–1)*(–1)=+1, no change.”

“The CPT Law in action. The CPT violation you’ve heard about is only observed in rare weak‑force‑mediated radioactive decays of a carefully prepared nucleus. That was a 1956 Nobel‑winning discovery, though the right person didn’t win it.”

“1956. Decades before A.I.”

“Yup, ChatGPT is off the hook. For that.”

“Bye.”

“Don’t mention it.”

~ Rich Olcott

  • Thanks to Caitlin, the hand model.

The Beaming Beacon

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Techniques, Physics: Black Holes and Relativity, Physics: Light and Relativity, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“So, Vinnie, that first article’s bogus. Blobs in M87’s supermassive black hole’s jet don’t travel faster than light. Your second article — is it also about M87*?”

M87* image – Credit EHT Collaboration

“Yeah, Cathleen. It’s got this picture which a while ago Sy explained looks like a wrung‑out towel because that’s the way the thing’s magnetic field forces electrons to line up and give off polarized light.”

“As always, Vinnie, your memory impresses.”

“Thanks, I work at it. Anyhow, this one‑paragraph article says they figured out from the picture that everything’s spinning around as fast as it’s possible to spin. How fast is that, and how’d they get the spin speed if they only used one frequency so redshift/blueshift doesn’t apply?”

Cathleen’s been poking at her tablet. “HAH! Found the real paper behind your pop‑sci article, Vinnie. Give me a minute…” <pause, with mumbling> “Wow, not much there in the disk. They estimate even at the crowded innermost orbit, they call it ISCO, the density’s about 10-14 kg/m3 which would be one nanopascal of pressure. Most labs consider that ultrahigh vacuum. They get angular momentum from something called ‘Doppler beaming’, which I’m not familiar with.” <passes tablet to me> “Your turn, Sy.”

“ISCO’s the Innermost Stable Circular Orbit. ISCO’s radius depends on the black hole’s mass and spin.” <pause, with mumbling> “Doppler beaming’s a velocity‑dependent brightness shift from outbound to inbound sides of ISCO. They connected brightness range within the images to ISCO velocity, multiplied that by ISCO radius and the black hole’s mass to get the disk’s angular momentum, J. The lightspeed rotation angular momentum Jmax comes from theory. The paper puts a number to M87*’s J/Jmax.“

“My article says it’s near 100%.”

“That’s not what the paper says, Vinnie. ‘…our value of 0.8 would appear to be a lower limit,’ in other words, something above 80% but definitely not 100%. Like I said, pop‑sci journalism. So what’s Doppler beaming, Sy?”

“Classical Doppler shifts happen when a wave source moves relative to us. Motion toward us crams successive wave peaks into decreasing distance. Motion away increases wavelength. The same principle applies to light waves, sound waves, even ocean waves.”

“Blueshifting.”

“Mm‑hm. By contrast, beaming is about how a source’s motion affects the photon count we receive per second. Imagine a beacon steadily sending us photons as it whips at near‑lightspeed around M87*. When the beacon screams towards us its motion crams more photons into one of our seconds than when it dashes away.”

“More blueshifting.”

“Not quite. Photon‑count compression sort‑of resembles the blueshifting process but wavelength isn’t relevant. It combines with the other part of beaming, Special Relativity space compression, which concentrates a moving beacon’s photons in the direction of motion. It’s like focusing a fancy flashlight, narrowing the beam to concentrate it. The faster the beacon travels in our direction, the greater proportion of its photons are sent towards us.”

Vinnie looks up and to the left. “If ISCO’s going near lightspeed, won’t the disk’s inertia drag on the black hole?”

“Sure, within limits. M87* and Sagittarius-A* both have magnetic fields; most black holes probably do. Accretion disk plasma must be frozen into the field. The whole structure would rotate like a spongy wheel with a fuzzy boundary. The lightspeed limit could cut in at the wheel’s rim, much farther out than the Event Horizon’s sphere.”

Count on Vinnie to jump on vagueness. “Spongy? Fuzzy?”

“Because nothing about a black hole’s extended architecture is rigid. It’s a messy mix of gravitational, electric and magnetic fields, all randomly agitated by transients from inbound chunks of matter and feeding outbursts from inside ISCO. The disk’s outer boundary is the raggedy region where the forces finally give way as centrifugal force works to fling particles out into the Universe. I don’t know how to calculate where the boundary is, but this image suggests it’s out about 10 times the Horizon’s radius. The question is, how does the boundary’s speed limit affect spin?” <tapping rapidly on Old Reliable’s screen>

“And the answer is…?”

“Disk particles driven close to lightspeed do push back. They lightly scramble those mushy fields but much too feebly to slow the central spin.”

~ Rich Olcott

Not Even A Sneeze in A Hurricane

On By rolcottIn General: Fun Stuff, Physics: Newton and Gravity, Space Travel, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Quite a commotion at the lakeshore this morning. I walk over to see what’s going on. Not surprised at who’s involved. “Come away from there, Mr Feder, you’re too close to their goslings.” Doesn’t work, of course, so I resort to stronger measures. “Hey, Mr Feder, any questions for me?”

That did the trick. “Hey, yeah, Moire, I got one. There’s this big problem with atomic power ’cause there’s leftovers when the fuel’s all used up and nobody wants it buried their back yard and I unnerstand that. How about we just load all that stuff into one of Musk’s Starships and send it off to burn up in the Sun? Or would that make the Sun blow up?”

“Second part first. Do you sneeze?”

“What kinda question is that? Of course I sneeze. Everyone sneezes.”

“Ever been in a hurricane?”

“Oohyeah. Sandy, back in 2012. Did a number on my place in Fort Lee. Took out my back fence, part of the roof, branches down all over the place—”

“Did you sneeze during the storm?”

“Who remembers that sort of thing?”

“If you had, would it have made any difference to how the winds blew?”

“Nah, penny‑ante compared to what else was going on. Besides, the storm eye went a couple hundred miles west of us.”

“Well, there you go. The Sun’s surface is covered by about a million granules, each about the size of Texas, and each releasing about 400 exawatts—”.

“Exawha?”

“Exawatt. One watt is one joule of energy per second. Exa– means 1018. So just one of those granules releases 400×1018 joules of energy per second. By my numbers that’s about 2300 times the total energy that Earth gets from the Sun. There’s a million more granules like that. Still think one of our rockets would make much difference with all that going on?”

“No difference anybody’d notice. But that just proves it’d be safe to send our nuclear trash straight to the Sun.”

“Safe, yes, but not practical.”

“When someone says ‘practical’ they’re about to do numbers, right?”

“Indeed. How much nuclear waste do you propose to ship to the Sun?”

“I dunno. How much we got?”

“I saw a 2022 estimate from the International Atomic Energy Agency that our world‑wide accumulation so far is over 265 000 tonnes, mostly spent fuel. Our heaviest heavy‑lift vehicle is the SpaceX Starship. Maximum announced payload to low‑Earth orbit is 400 tonnes for a one‑way trip. You ready to finance 662 launches?”

“Not right now, I’m a little short ’til next payday. How about we just launch the really dangerous stuff, like plutonium?”

“Much easier rocket‑wise, much harder economics‑wise.”

“Why do you say that?”

“Because most of the world’s nuclear power plants depend on MOX fuel, a mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides. Take away all the plutonium, you mess up a significant chunk of our carbon‑free‑mostly electricity production. But I haven’t gotten to the really bad news yet.”

“I’m always good for bad news. Give.”

“Even with the best of intentions, it’s an expensive challenge to shoot a rocket straight from Earth into the Sun.”

“Huh? It’d go down the gravity well just like dropping a ball.”

“Nope, not like dropping a ball. More like flinging it off to the side with a badly‑aimed trebuchet. Guess how fast the Earth moves around the Sun.”

“Dunno. I heard it’s a thousand miles an hour at the Equator.”

“That’s the planet’s rotation on its own axis. My question was how fast we go taking a year to do an orbit around the Sun. I’ll spare you the arithmetic — the planet speeds eastward at 30 kilometers per second. Any rocket taking off from Earth starts with that vector, and it’s at right angles to the Earth‑Sun line. You can’t hit the Sun without shedding all that lateral momentum. If you keep it, the rules of orbital mechanics force the ship to go faster and faster sideways as it drops down the well — you flat‑out miss the Sun. By the way, LEO delta‑v for SpaceX’s most advanced Starship is about 7 km/s, less than a fifth of the minimum necessary for an Earth‑to‑Sun lift.”

~ Rich Olcott