Tag: Cal’s Coffee

New (Old) Word: Frigorific!

On By rolcottIn Physics: Entropy and Thermodynamics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

A quiet morning at Cal’s Coffee. I’m sipping my morning mud when Susan Kim bustles to my table, mocha latte in hand. “There you are, Sy. I loved your posts in tribute to the well‑thumbed copy of the CRC Handbook on my desk.”

“Glad you enjoyed them.”

“Your Rumford stuff made it even better because I did a class report on him once so I caught your ‘frigorific‘ reference. What do you know about the background to that?”

“Not much. Didn’t sound like a real word when I ran across it.”

“Oh, it’s a real word but it has a technical meaning now that it didn’t in Newton’s time. Back then it was only about making something cold. These days we also use the word for a mixture that maintains a dependable cold temperature. Liquid water and ice, for instance, stays at 0°C as long as there’s still ice in the cold bath. I used to use an ammonium chloride/water frigorific when I needed something down around -15°C. Now of course I use a benchtop refrigerator.”

“Rumford would have liked that. What were the ‘frigorific rays‘ he got all excited about?”

“Long story but there’s a couple of fun twists. Background first. At the end of the 1700s there was a <grin> heated debate about heat. The phlogiston theory was dead by that time but people still liked the idea that heat was a material fluid. It addressed some chemical puzzles but heat transmission was still mysterious. Everyone knew that a hot object gives off heat by radiation, that the radiation travels in straight lines and that it’s reflected by metal mirrors.”

“Right, the Greeks are supposed to have used huge sun‑focusing mirrors to burn up attacking Roman ships.”

“Maybe. Anyhow, those properties connected heat with light. However, a pane of glass blocks radiated heat, at least until the glass gets hot. People argued this meant heat and light weren’t connected. About 1790 a group of physicists loosely associated with the Academy of Geneva dove into the fray. Rumford was in the group, along with Prévost, Saussure and his student Pictet. They had lots of fun with heat theories and experiments. One of Pictet’s experiments lit Rumford’s fire, so to speak.”

“Good one.”

<smile> “It’s a fairly simple setup that a high school science teacher could do. Pictet hung a concave metallic mirror facing down from the ceiling of a draft‑free room. He placed another concave metallic mirror at floor level immediately beneath it, facing upward. He probably used spherical mirrors which are easy to make, but they could have been elliptical or parabolic sections. Anyhow, he put a thermoscope at the upper mirror’s focal point and a hot object at the lower focal point. Sure enough, the upper focal point got hotter, just as you’d expect.”

“No great surprise, the Greeks would have expected that, too.”

“The surprise happened when he put a cold object in there. The thermoscope’s droplet moved in the cold direction.”

“Wait, like anti‑infrared?”

“That’s the effect. Wave‑theory supporter Rumford took that thought, called it ‘frigorific radiation‘ and ran with it. He constructed a whole thesis around cold waves and heat waves as symmetric partners. He maintained wave intensity, both kinds, increases with temperature difference. Our heat sources are hundreds or thousand of degrees hotter than we are but our cold sources are at most a few dozen degrees colder. By his theory that’s why cold wave phenomena are masked by heat waves.”

“Give me a minute. … Ah, got it. The very meaning of a focal point is that all waves end or start there. A cold object at the sending station emits much less infrared than the warm object did. The thermoscope bulb now gets less than it emits. With less input from below its net energy drops. It chills.”

“Nice, Sy. Now for the other twist. Rumford published his theory in 1805. Herschel had already identified infrared radiation in the Sun’s spectrum in 1800. Two strikes against Herschel, I guess — he was British and he was an astronomer. Continental physicists wouldn’t bother to read his stuff.”

~ Rich Olcott

Not Enough Monkeys

On By rolcottIn General: Fun Stuff, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“Morning, Sy. You see the news about the Infinite Monkey thing?”

“No, Cal, with everything else going on I seem to have missed that.”

“Understandable. I only heard about it from a ‘lighter side of the news’ piece on the radio. Something about disproving what everybody used to believe. You wrote about it a while ago, didn’t you?”

“Mm-hm. Did a lot of arithmetic for that one. The idea is that if you somehow managed to get an infinite number of monkeys banging away on typewriters, sooner or later one of them would produce the complete works of Shakespeare. The piece I did, gee, years ago, used Terry Pratchett’s idea of a library that contains all the books that have been written, all those that will be written, and all those that would have been written but the author thought better of it. I asked, how big is that library?”

“That’s gotta be a lot of books. Here’s your coffee.”

“Thanks. I guessed maybe a billion, maximum. The Library of Congress has only 30‑some million, last I looked, and that’s real books. Anyhow, I decided to compare that to the number of possible books, printed up using some configuration of 500 characters.”

“500? What else besides ‘a, b, c‘?”

“Upper case, lower case, blanks, punctuation, math symbols, alphabets from other languages, whatever. No pictographic systems like Japanese kanji and Chinese but you can’t have everything. I defined ‘possible book’ as 500 pages, 4000 characters per page so two million per book.”

“All my books are shorter than that and they don’t scramble alphabets from different languages.”

“Short books you could pad to 500 characters with blanks at the end. Some of the experimental fanfic I’ve seen is pretty creative. At any rate, I calculated 5002,000,000 = 105,397,940 different possible books. Limit the library to 250 pages and 100 characters in, say, Spanish with no math that’d be 1001,000,000 = 102,000,000 different possible books, which is still huge, right?”

“My calculator doesn’t do numbers up in the air like that. I’ll believe you, it’s a big number. So where are you going with this?”

“So even a billion‑book library would be swamped by the other 105,397,931 books in an all‑possible‑books library. My point in that old post was that the monkeys could indeed type up Shakespeare but you wouldn’t be able to find it in the welter of absolute nonsense books.”

He’s an Ape, not a monkey

“Looks good to me, so what’d these guys prove?”

“Dunno, haven’t seen their paper yet. Give me a minute with Old Reliable … Ah, here it is, ‘A numerical evaluation of the Finite Monkeys Theorem‘ by Woodcock and Falletta. Aand it’s not paywalled!” <reading> “Wait, finite — that’s different.”

“How’s it different? Arithmetic’s arithmetic, right?”

“Until you get into infinities. True infinity operates differently than ‘large beyond anything we can measure’. I highlighted the difference in a tech note I wrote a few years ago. How would you bet if someone suggested there’s an exact duplicate Earth existing somewhere else in the Universe?”

“That’s what that goofy ‘Everything Everywhere’ movie was all about, right? Multiverses?”

“Mmm, no, the bet’s about only in our Universe.”

“Knowing you, I’d stay out of the betting.”

“Wise choice. The right answer is ‘It depends’. I calculated that there could be 1.54×10154 possible Earths with exactly the same atom count that we have, just arranged differently, maybe swap one nickel atom with one iron atom inside a hematite rock. So 1.54×10154 chances for an identical copy of you. If the Universe is infinite, then you’re guaranteed to have not just one, but an infinite number of identical copies, each of whom thinks they’re the only you.”

“That’s comforting, somehow.”

“On the other hand, if the Universe is finite, then the planet creation process would have to run through something like 10150 creations before it had a good shot at re‑making you. Vanishingly small odds.”

“So what’s this got to do with finite monkeys?”

“Woodcock and Falletta maintain that there’s only a limited number of monkeys and they’re time‑constrained. Under those conditions, there’s vanishingly small odds for Shakespeare or even the word ‘bananas’.”

~ Rich Olcott

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

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

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.

A Great Big Mesh

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

Cal has my coffee mug filled as soon as I step into his shop. “Get to the back room quick, Sy. Cathleen’s got another Crazy Theories seminar going back there.”

So I do. First thing I hear is Amanda finishing her turn at the mic. “And that’s why humans evolved male pattern baldness.”

A furor of “Amanda! Amanda! Amanda!” then Cathleen regains control. “Thank you, Amanda. Next up — Newt Barnes. What’s your Crazy Theory, Newt?”

“Crazy idea, not a theory, but I like it. Everybody’s heard of black holes, right?”

<general nodding>

“And we’ve all heard that nothing can leave a black hole, not even light.”

<more nodding>

“Well in fact that’s mostly not true. There’s so much confusion about black holes. We’ve known about a black hole’s event horizon and its internal mass since the 1920s. It took years for us to realize that the central mass could wrap a shiny accretion disk around itself, and an ergosphere, and maybe spit out jets. So, close outside the Event Horizon there’s a lot of light‑emitting structure, right?”

<A bit less nodding, but still.>

“Right. So I’ll skip in past a few controversial layers and get down to the famously black event horizon. Why’s it black?”

Voice from the back of the room — “Because photons can’t get out because escape velocity’s faster than lightspeed.”

“That’s the answer I expected, but it’s also one of the confusing parts. You’re right, the horizon marks the level where outward‑bound massy particles can’t escape. The escape velocity equation depends on trading off kinetic and gravitational potential energy. Any particle with mass would have to convert an impossible amount of kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy to get through the barrier. But zero‑mass particles, photons and such, are pure kinetic energy. They aren’t bound by a gravitational potential so escape velocity trade‑offs simply don’t apply. There’s a deeper reason photons also can’t get out.”

VBOR — “So what’s trapping them?”

“Time. It traps photons and any kind of information. The other thing about the Event Horizon is, it’s the level where spacetime is so bent around that the time‑coordinate is just on the verge of pointing inward. Once you’re inside that boundary the cause‑and‑effect arrow of time is against you. Whatever direction you point your flashlight, its beam will emerge in your future and that’s away from the horizon. Trying to send a signal outside would be like sending it into your past, which you can’t do. Nothing gets away from a black hole except…”

“Except?”

“Roger Penrose found a loophole and I may have found another one. There’s something that Wheeler called the No-Hair Theorem. It says that the Event Horizon hides everything inside it except for its mass, electric charge and angular momentum.”

“How do those get out?”

“They don’t get out so much as serve as backdrop for all the drama in the rest of the structure. If you know the mass, for instance, you can calculate its temperature and the Horizon’s diameter and a collection of other properties.”

Cathleen senses a teachable moment and breaks in. “Talk about charge and spin, Newt.”

“I was going there, Cathleen. Kerr and company’s equations take account of both of those. Turns out the attractive forces between opposite charges are so much stronger than gravity that it’s hard for an object in space to build up a significant amount of either kind of charge without getting neutralized almost immediately. Kind of ironic that the Coulomb force, far stronger than gravity, generates net energy contributions that are much smaller than the gravity‑based ones. Spin, though, that’s where the loopholes are. Penrose figured out how particles from the accretion disk could dip into the black hole’s spinning ergosphere, steal some of its energy, and stream up to power the jets.”

VBOR — “What’s your loophole then?”

“Speed contrast between layers. The black hole mass is spinning at a great rate, dragging nearby spacetime and the ergosphere and the accretion disk around with it. But the layers go slower as you move outward. Station a turbine generator like an idler gear between any two layers and you’re pulling power from the black hole’s spin.”

Silence … then, “Amanda! Amanda! Amanda!”

~ Rich Olcott

Cal’s Gallery

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

“Goodness, Cal, you’ve redone your interior decorations.”

“I got tired of looking at the blank wall opposite the cash register, Sy. Check out the gallery. Way at the end here’s the earliest one I’ve got, goes back to 2005.”

“Yeah, ray-marching each background pixel as it passed through the distorting gravity field. That was heavy-duty computer graphics back then.”

“A Black Hole of ten solar masses as seen from a distance of 600km with the Milky Way in the background” — by Ute Kraus, Universität Hildesheim.
Under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany license

“Here’s another one from a year later. I like it better because you can pair up stars and stuff that show up on both sides of the Einstein ring.”

“Simulated view of a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud… Of note is the gravitational lensing effect known as an Einstein ring, which produces a set of two fairly bright and large but highly distorted images of the Cloud as compared to its actual angular size.”
— by R. Alain, Paris Astrophysics Institute
under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license

“This one’s famous, comin’ from the Interstellar movie. Funny, I can’t think of any black hole pictures before Interstellar that paid much attention to the accretion disk.”

“There certainly was a lot of that in the specialist literature, but you’re probably right for what leaked out to the pop‑sci press. Most of the published imagery was about how the gravity field distorts the figures behind it. That perpendicular handle was certainly a surprise.”

“Gargantua, the extreme stellar black hole in the movie Interstellar”
Grey disk is the Event Horizon; circle is the Photon Sphere.
Adapted from work by Thorne, James, et al., CalTech and DNEG

“This one’s famous, too. It shows what made the first good evidence that black holes are a thing, back in 1965. That ball to the right is a blue supergiant. See how its solar wind is feeding into X-1’s accretion disk? NASA’s picture is from 2017 so it’s not really historical or anything.”

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

“Now this one is historical, Cal. That image was released in 2019 from data collected in 2017.”

“I knew you’d recognize it, Sy. You’ve written about it enough.”

Initial image of Messier 87* — by the ESO EHT team
licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license

<sly grin> “Whaddya think of this one, Sy, the gravitational waves from those two black holes that LIGO told us about?”

“You knew I wouldn’t like it.”

“The final waltz of two black holes” – click for video
Credit: R. Hurt – Caltech / JPL

“It’s just another trampoline picture, right?”

“No, it’s worse than that. Gravitational waves travel at lightspeed. Massive objects like people and 30‑solar‑mass black holes can’t get up to a fraction of a percent of lightspeed without expending an enormous amount of energy. The waves travel outward much faster than objects can orbit each other, even up to the end. Those waves winding outward should be nearly straight.”

“Whoa, Cal, this one isn’t a poster, it’s a monitor screen.”

“I bought a new bigger flat‑screen for home so I brought the old small one here for videos. I like how this movie shows the complicated shape flattening out when you get above the disk. The Interstellar movie made everyone think the disk is some weird double‑handled ring but the handle’s aren’t really there.”

“Mm‑hm, very nice gravity‑lens demonstration. Notice how the ring’s bright in whichever side’s coming toward us whether we’re above or below it?”

“Circling over a black hole structure” — Click for video
Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Jeremy Schnittman

“No, I hadn’t. Cool. How come?”

“It’s called relativistic Doppler beaming. Time distortion is significant in the close‑in parts of the ring. That affects how we see the flow. In the hole’s frame of reference the brightness and rotation speed are the same all around. In our frame the moving‑closer particles look brighter because they emit more photons per unit of our time. Another one of those unexpected phenomena where physicists say, ‘Of course!’ as soon as they see it but not before.”

~~ Rich Olcott

A Non-political Polarizing Topic

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

Vinnie gets the deck next, but first thing he does is plop a sheet of paper onto the table. “Topic is black holes, of course. Everybody’s seen this, right?”

“Sure, it’s the new view of the Milky Way’s super-massive black hole with the extra lines. So deal already.”

“Hold your horses, Cal.” <Vinnie starts dealing.> “I’m looking for explanations. Where’d those lines come from? They swirl across the accretion disk like so much rope, right? Why aren’t they just going straight in orderly‑like? The whole thing just don’t make sense to me.”

Susan bets a few chips. “I saw a similar pop‑sci article, Vinnie. It said the lines trace out polarization in the light waves the Event Horizon Telescope captured. Okay, radio waves — same thing just longer wavelength. Polarized radio waves. I’ve measured concentrations of sugar and amino acid solutions by how much the liquid rotates polarized light, but the light first went through a polarizing filter. How does a black hole make polarized waves?”

Kareem matches Susan’s bet. “Mm‑hm. We use polarized light passing through thin sections of the rocks we sample to characterize the minerals in them. But like Susan says, we don’t make polarized light, we use a filter to subtract out the polarization we don’t want. You’re the physicist, Sy, how does the black hole do the filtering?”

Plane‑polarized electromagnetic wave
 Electric (E) field is red
 Magnetic (B) field is blue
(Image by Loo Kang Wee and Fu-Kwun Hwang from Wikimedia Commons)

My hand’s good so I match the current ante. “It doesn’t. There’s no filtering, the light just comes out that way. I’d better start with the fundamentals.” <displaying Old Reliable> “Does this look familiar, Vinnie?”

“Yeah, Sy, you’ve used it a lot. That blue dot in the back’s an electron, call it Alice, bobbing straight up and down. That’s the polarization it’s puttin’ on the waves. The red lines are the force that another electron, call it Bob, feels at whatever distance away. Negative‑negative is repelling that so Bob goes down where the red line goes up but you get the basic idea.”

“The blue lines are important here.”

“I’m still hazy on those. They twist things, right?”

“That’s one way to put it. Hendrik Lorentz put it better when he wrote that Bob in this situation experiences one force with two components. There’s the red‑line charge‑dependent component, plus the blue‑line component that depends on the charge and Bob’s motion relative to Alice. If the two are moving in parallel—”

“The same frame, then. I knew frames would get into this somehow.”

“It’s hard to avoid frames when motion’s the subject. Anyway, if the two electrons are moving in parallel, the blue‑line component has zero effect. If the two are moving in different directions, the blue‑line component rotates Bob’s motion perpendicular to Alice’s red‑line polarization plane. How much rotation depends on the angle between the two headings — it’s a maximum when Bob’s moving perpendicular to Alice’s motion.”

“Wait, if this is about relative motion, then Bob thinks Alice is twisting, too. If she thinks he’s being rotated down, then he thinks she’s being rotated up, right? Action‑reaction?”

“Absolutely, Vinnie. Now let’s add Carl to the cast.”

“Carl?”

Alice and Bob’s electromagnetic interaction
begets motion that generates new polarized light.

“Distant observer at right angles to Alice’s polarization plane. From Carl’s point of view both electrons are just tracking vertically. Charges in motion generate lightwaves so Carl sees light polarized in that plane.”

Cathleen’s getting impatient, makes her bet with a rattle of chips. “What’s all this got to do with the lines in the EHT image?”

“The hole’s magnetic field herds charged particles into rotating circular columns. Faraday would say each column centers on a line of force. Alice and a lot of other charged particles race around some column. Bob and a lot of other particles vibrate along the column and emit polarized light which shows up as bright lines in the EHT image.”

“But why are the columns twisted?”

“Orbit speed in the accretion disk increases toward its center. I’d bet that’s what distorts the columns. Also, I’ve got four kings.”

“That takes this pot, Sy.”

~~ Rich Olcott

Fields of Dreams

On By rolcottIn Cosmology, Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Physics: Waves, Uncategorized1 Comment

Vinnie takes a slug of his coffee. “So the gravitational field carries the gravitational wave. I suppose Einstein would blame sound waves on some kind of field?”

I take a slug of mine. “Mm-hm. We techies call it a pressure field. Can’t do solar physics without it. The weather maps you use when plotting up a flight plan — they lay three fields on top of the geography.”

“Lessee — temp, wind … and barometer reading. In the old days I’d use that one to calibrate my altimeter. You say those are fields?”

“In general, if a variable has a value at every point in the region of interest, the complete set of values is a field. Temperature and pressure are the simplest type. Their values are just numbers. Each point in a wind field has both speed and direction, two numbers treated as a single value, so you’ve got a field of vector values.”

“Oh, I know vectors, Sy. I’m a pilot, remember? So you’re saying instead of looking at molecules back‑and‑forthing to make sound waves we step back and look at just the pressure no matter the molecules. Makes things simpler, I can see that. Okay, how about the idea those other guys had?”

“Hm? Oh, the other wave carrier idea. Einstein’s gravitational waves are just fine, but the Quantum Field Theorists added a collection of other fields, one for each of the 17 boxes in the Standard Model.”

“Boxes?”

<displaying Old Reliable’s screen> “Here’s the usual graphic. It’s like the chemist’s Periodic Table but goes way below the atomic level. There’s a box each for six kinds of quarks; another half‑dozen for electrons, neutrinos and their kin; four more boxes for mediating electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Finally and at last there’s a box for the famous Higgs boson which isn’t about gravity despite what the pop‑sci press says.”

“What’s in the boxes?”

“Each box holds a list of properties — rest mass, spin, different kinds of charge, and a batch of rules for how to interact with the other thingies.”

“Thingies, Sy? I wouldn’t expect that word from you.”

“I would have said ‘particle‘ but that would violate QFT’s tenets despite the graphic’s headline.”

“Tenets? That word sounds more like you. What’s the problem?”

“That the word ‘particle‘ as we normally use it doesn’t really apply at the quantum field level. Each box names a distinct field that spreads its values and waves all across the Universe. There’s an electron field, a photon field, an up‑quark field, a down‑quark field, and so on. According to QFT, what we’d call a particle is nothing more than a localized peak in its underlying field. Where you find a peak you’ll find all the properties listed in its box. Wherever the field’s value is below its threshold, you find none of them.”

“All or none, huh? I guess that’s where quantum comes in. Wait, that means there could be gazillions of one of them popping up wherever, like maybe a big lump of one kind all right next to each other.”

“No, the rules prevent that. Quarks, for instance, only travel in twos or threes of assorted kinds. The whole job of the gluons is to enforce QFT rules so that, for instance, two up‑quarks and a down‑quark make a proton but only if they have different color charges.”

“Wait, color charge?”

“Not real colors, just quantum values that could as easily have been labeled 1, 2, 3 or A, B, C. There’s also an anti- for each value so the physicists could have used ±1, ±2, ±3, but they didn’t, they used ‘red’ and ‘anti‑red’ and so forth. And ‘color charge‘ is a different property from electric charge. Gluons only interact with color charge, photons only interact with electric charge. The rules are complicated.”

“You said ‘waves.’ Each of these fields can have waves like gravity waves?”

“Absolutely. We can’t draw good pictures of them because they’re 3‑dimensional. And they’re constantly in motion, of course.”

“How fast can those waves travel?”

“The particles are limited to lightspeed or slower; the waves, who knows?”

“Ripples zipping around underneath the quantum threshold could account for entanglement, ya’ know?”

“Maybe.”

~~ Rich Olcott

Galaxies Sing In A Low Register

On By rolcottIn Astronomy, Physics: Waves, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Jeremy gets a far‑away look. ”It’s gotta be freakin’ noisy inside the Sun.” just as our resident astronomer steps into Cal’s Coffee.

“Wouldn’t bet that, Jeremy. Depends on where you are in the Sun and on how you define noise.”

Vinnie booms, quietly. ”We just defined it, Cathleen. Atoms or molecules bumping each other in compression waves. Oh, wait, that’s ‘sound,’ you said ‘noise.’ Is that different?”

Susan slurps the last of her chocolate latte. ”Depends on your mood, I guess. All noise is sound, but some sound can be signal. Some people don’t like my slurping so for them it’s noise but Cal hears it as an order for another which makes him happy.”

“Comin’ up, Susan. Hey, Cathleen, maybe you can slap down Sy. He said spiral galaxies have something to do with sound which don’t make sense. Set him straight, okay?”

“Sy, have you all settled that sound isn’t limited to what humans hear?”

“Sure. Everybody’s agreed that infrasound and ultrasound are sound, and that Bishop Berkeley’s fallen tree made a sound even though nobody heard it. That’s probably what got Jeremy thinking about sound inside the Sun.” Jeremy nods.

“Then Vinnie’s definition is too limited and Sy’s statement is correct. Probably.”

That gets a reaction from everyone, though mine is a smile. ”Let ’em have it, Cathleen.”

“Okay. Let’s take Jeremy’s idea first and then we’ll get to galaxies.” <fetches her tablet from her purse and a display on her tablet> “Here’s a diagram of the Sun I did for class. If you restrict ‘sound‘ to mean only coherent waves borne by atoms and molecules, there’s no sound in the innermost three zones. The only motion, if Sy grants I can call it that, is photons and subnuclear particles randomly swapping between adjacent nuclei that are basically locked into position by the pressure. Not much actual atomic motion until you’re up in the Convection Zone where rising turbulence is the whole game. Even there most of the particles are ions and electrons rather than neutral atoms. Loud? You might say so but it’d be a continuous random crackle‑buzz, not anything your ears would recognize. Sound waves as such don’t happen until you reach the atmospheric layers. Up there, oh yes, Jeremy, it’s loud.”

Geologist Kareem is a quiet guy, normally just sits and listens to our chatter, but Cathleen’s edging onto his turf. ”How about seismic waves? If there’s a big flare or CME up top, won’t that send vibrations all the way through?”

“Good point, Kareem. Yes, the Sun has p and s waves just like Earth does, but they travel no deeper than the Convection Zone. A different variety we may not have, g waves, would involve the core. Unfortunately, theory says g waves are so weak that the Convection Zone’s chaos swamps them. Anyway, the Sun’s s, p and g waves wouldn’t contribute to what Jeremy would hear because their frequencies are measured in hours or days. Can I get to galaxies now?”

“Please do.”

A Hubble view of NGC 5457, the Pinwheel Galaxy. Credit: NASA, ESA.

“Thanks.” <another display on her tablet> “Here’s a classic spiral galaxy. Gorgeous, huh? The obvious question is, is it winding in or spraying out? The evidence says ‘No‘ to both. The stars are neither pulled into a whirlpool nor flung out from a central star‑spawner. By and large, the stars or clusters of them are in perfectly good Newtonian orbits around the galactic center of gravity. So why are they collected into those arms? Here’s a clue — most of the blue stars are in the arms.”

“What’s special about blue stars?”

“In general, blue stars are large, hot and young. Our Sun is yellow, about halfway through a 10‑million‑year lifetime. The blue guys burn through their fuel and go nova in a tenth of that time. Blue stars out there tell us that the arms serve as stellar nurseries. It’s not stars gathering into arms, it’s galaxy‑wide rotating waves of gas birthing stars there. There’s argument about whether the wave rotation is intrinsic or whether there’s feedback as each wave is pulled along by star formation at the leading edge and pushed by novae at the trailing edge. Sy’s point, though, is that an arm‑dwelling old red star would experience the spinning gas density pattern as a basso profundo sound wave with a frequency even lower than the million‑year range. Right, Sy?”

“As always, Cathleen.”

~~ Rich Olcott

  • More thanks to Alex.