Tag: Jeremy

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

Squaring The Circle

On By rolcottIn Cosmology, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Vinnie gives me the eye. “That crazy theory of yours is SO bogus, Sy, and there’s a coupla things you said we ain’t heard before.”

“What’s wrong with my Mach’s Principle of Time?”

“If the rest of the Universe is squirting one thing forward along Time, then everything’s squirting everything forward. No push‑back in the other direction. You might as well say that everything’s running away from the Big Bang.”

“That’s probably a better explanation. What are the couple of things?”

“One of them was, ‘geodesic,‘ as in ‘motion along a geodesic.‘ What’s a geodesic?”

“The shortest path between two points.”

“That’s a straight line, Mr Moire. First day in Geometry class.”

“True in Euclid’s era, Jeremy, but things have moved on since then. These days the phrase ‘shortest path’ defines ‘straight line’ rather than the other way around. Furthermore, the choice depends on how you define ‘shortest’. In Minkowski’s spacetime, for instance, do you mean ‘least distance’ or ‘least interval’?”

“How are those different?”

“The word ‘distance’ is a space‑only measurement. Minkowski plotted space in x,y,z terms just like Newton would have if he could’ve brought himself to use René Descartes’ cartesian coordinates. You know Euclid’s a²+b²=c² so you should have no problem calculating 3D distance as d=√(x²+y²+z²).”

“That makes sense. So what’s ‘interval’ about then?”

“Time has entered the picture. In Minkowski’s framework you handle two ‘events’ that may be at different locations and different times by using what he called the ‘interval,’ s. It measures the path between events as
s=√[(x²+y²+z²)–(ct)²]. Usually we avoid the square root sign and work with s².”

“That minus sign looks weird. Where’d it come from?”

“When Minkowski was designing his spacetime, he needed a time scale that could be combined with the x,y,z lengths but was perpendicular to each of them. Multiplying time by lightspeed c gave a length, but it wasn’t perpendicular. He could get that if he multiplied by i=√(–1) to get cti as a partner for x,y,z. Fortunately, that forced the minus sign into the sum‑of‑squares
(x²+y²+z²)–(ct)² formula.”

Vinnie’s getting impatient. “What is an actual geodesic, who cares about them, and what do these equations have to do with anything?”

“A geodesic is a path in spacetime. Light always travels along a geodesic. The modern version of Newton’s First Law says that any object not subject to an outside force travels along a geodesic. By definition the geodesic is the shortest path, but you can’t select which path from A to B is the shortest unless you can measure or calculate them. There’s math to tell us how to do that. Time’s a given in a Newtonian Universe, not a coordinate, so geodesics are distance‑only. We calculate d along paths that Euclid would recognize as straight lines. That’s why the First Law is usually stated in terms of straight lines.”

“So the lines can go all curvy?”

“Depends, Vinnie. When you’re piloting an over‑water flight, you fly a steady bearing, right?”

“Whenever ATC and the weather lets me. It’s the shortest route.”

“So according to your instruments you’re flying a straight line. But if someone were tracking you from the ISS they’d say you’re flying along a Great Circle, the intersection of Earth’s surface with some planar surface. You prefer Great Circles because they’re shortest‑distance routes. That makes them geodesics for travel on a planetary surface. Each Circle’s a curve when viewed from off the surface.”

“Back to that minus sign, Mr Moire. Why was it fortunate?”

“It’s at the heart of Relativity Theory. The expression links space and time in opposite senses. It’s why space compression always comes along with time dilation.”

“Oh, like at an Event Horizon. Wait, can’t that s²=(x²+y²+z²)–(ct)² arithmetic come out zero or even negative? What would those even mean?”

“The theory covers all three possibilities. If the sum is zero, then the distance between the two events exactly matches the time it would take light to travel between them. If the sum is positive the way I’ve written it then we say the geodesic is ‘spacelike’ because the distance exceeds light’s travel time. If it’s negative we’ve got a ‘timelike’ geodesic; A could signal B with time to spare.”

~ Rich Olcott

The Time Is Out of Joint

On By rolcottIn Cosmology, Crazy Theories, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Vinnie galumphs over to our table. “Hi, guys. Hey, Sy, I just read your Confluence post. I thought that we gave up on things happening simultaneous because of Einstein and relativity but I guess that wasn’t the reason.”

“Oh, things do happen simultaneously, no‑one claims they don’t, it’s just that it’s impossible for two widely‑separated observers to have evidence that two widely‑separated events happened simultaneously. That’s a very different proposition.”

“Ah, that makes me feel better. The ‘nothing is simultaneous‘ idea was making me itchy ’cause I know for sure that a good juggler lets go with one hand just as they’re catching with the other. How’s Einstein involved then?”

“Lightspeed’s a known constant. Knowing distance and lightspeed lets you calculate between‑event time, right? The key to simultaneity was understanding why lightspeed is a constant. We’d known lightspeed wasn’t infinite within the Solar System since Rømer’s time, but people doubted his number applied everywhere. Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism derived lightspeed from the properties of space itself so it’s universal. Only in Newton’s Universe was it possible for two distant observers to agree that two also‑distant events were simultaneous.”

“Why was Newton’s Universe special?

“Space held still and didn’t bend. Astronomers A and B had a stable baseline between them. After measuring the baseline with light they could measure the angles each observed between the events. Some trigonometry let them send each other congratulatory messages on seeing a simultaneous pair of incidents. After Einstein’s work, they knew better.”

“It’s frames again, ain’t it?”

“Of course, Vinnie. A‘s frame is almost certainly moving relative to B‘s frame. Motion puts the Lorentz relativity factor into the game, making each astronomer’s clock run faster than the other’s. Worse, each astronomer sees that the other’s yardsticks are too short.”

Jeremy gives me a confused look.

“Space compression goes along with time dilation, Jeremy. Professor Hanneken will explain it all when your class gets to that unit. Bottom line, things can happen simultaneously in Einstein’s Universe, but no‑one can agree on which things.”

“Wait, if every frame has its own time‑rate, how can two spaceships rendezvous for an operation?”

“Good question, Jeremy. Einstein had an answer but complications hide under the covers. He suggested that A start a timer when sending a light pulse to a mirror at B. A waits for the reflection. B starts a timer when they see A‘s pulse. A measures the pulse’s round‑trip time. Each creates a clock that advances one tick for half of the round-trip time. B sets their clock back by one tick. That done, they agree to meet some number of ticks later.”

“Hmm… That should work, but you said there are complications.”

“There are always complications. For instance, suppose B is slingshotting around a black hole so that pulse and reflection travel different pathlengths. Or suppose one frame is rotating edge‑on to the other. In practice the ships would re‑sync repeatedly while approaching the rendezvous point.”

Vinnie erupts. “HAW! Successive approximation again!”

“Indeed. If we could extend the method to more than two participants we’d have a true Universal Coordinated Time.”

“Don’t we have that, Mr Moire? The Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago. Couldn’t we measure time from that?”

“Sort of. Last I looked the number was 13.787 plus‑or‑minus 20 million years. Too much slop for an instantaneous fleet‑level rendezvous like the final battle scene in StarTrek:Picard. But you’ve brought up an interesting question for a Crazy Theories seminar. One of Cosmology’s deepest unsolved questions is, ‘How does inertia work?’ Do you remember Newton’s First Law?”

<closes eyes> “In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a net force.“

“Right. In other words, every object resists change to its current steady motion along a geodesic. Why is that? There’s no coherent, well‑founded, well‑tested theory. Einstein liked Mach’s Principle, which says inertia exists because every object is attracted through space to all the mass in the Universe. Suppose there’s a Mach’s Principle for Time, saying that objects squirt up the Time axis because they’re repelled by all the mass in the Universe.”

Vinnie hoots, “Bo-o-o-ohh-GUS!”

~ Rich Olcott

Hillerman, Pratchett And Narrativium

On By rolcottIn Astronomy, General: Fun Stuff, UncategorizedLeave a comment

No-one else in the place so Jeremy’s been eavesdropping on my conversation with Cal. “Lieutenant Leaphorn says there are no coincidences.”

“Oh, you’ve read Tony Hillerman’s mystery stories then?”

“Of course, Mr Moire. It’s fun getting a sympathetic outsider’s view of what my family and Elders have taught me. He writes Leaphorn as a very wise man.”

“With some interesting quirks for a professional crime solver. He doesn’t trust clues, yet he does trust apparent coincidences enough to follow up on them.”

“It does the job for him, though.”

“Mm‑hm, but that’s in stories. Have you read any of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld books?”

“What are they about?”

From Terry Pratchett’s book
Carpe Jugulum

“Pretty much everything, but through a lens of laughter and anger. Rather like Jonathan Swift. Pratchett was one of England’s most popular authors, wrote more than 40 novels in his too‑brief life. He identified narrativium as the most powerful force in the human universe. Just as the nuclear strong force holds the atomic nucleus together using gluons and mesons, narrativium holds stories together using coincidences and tropes.”

“Doesn’t sound powerful.”

“Good stories, ones that we’d say have legs, absolutely must have internal logic that gets us from one element to the next. Without that narrative flow they just fall apart; no‑one cares enough to remember them. As a writer myself, I’ve often wrestled with a story structure that refused to click together — sparse narrativium — or went in the wrong direction — wayward narrativium.”

“You said ‘the human universe’ like that’s different from the Universe around us.”

“The story universe is a multiverse made of words, pictures and numbers, crafted by humans to explain why one event follows another. The events could be in the objective world made of atoms or within the story world itself. Legal systems, history, science, they’re all pure narrativium. So is money, mostly. We don’t know of anything else in the Universe that builds stories like we do.”

“How about apes?”

“An open question, especially for orangutans. One of Pratchett’s important characters is The Librarian, a university staff member who had accidentally been changed from human to orangutan. He refuses to be restored because he prefers his new form. Which gives you a taste of Pratchett’s humor and his high regard for orangutans. But let’s get back to Leaphorn and coincidences.”

“Regaining control over your narrativium, huh?”

“Guilty as charged. Leaphorn’s standpoint is that there are no coincidences because the world runs on patterns, that events necessarily connect one to the next. When he finds the pattern, he solves the mystery.”

“Very Diné. Our Way is to look for and restore harmony and balance.”

“Mm‑hm. But remember, Leaphorn is only a character in Hillerman’s narrativium‑driven stories. The atom‑world may not fit that model. A coincidence for you may not be a coincidence for someone else, depending. Those two concurrent June novas, for example. For most of the Universe they’re not concurrent.”

“I hope this doesn’t involve relativistic clocks. Professor Hanneken hasn’t gotten us to Einstein’s theories yet.”

Adapted from images by
IAU and Sky & Telescope magazine
(Roger Sinnott & Rick Fienberg)
CC BY 3.0

“No relativity; this is straight geometry. Rømer could have handled it 350 years ago.” <brief tapping on Old Reliable’s screen> “Here’s a quick sketch and the numbers are random. The two novas are connected by the blue arc as we’d see them in the sky if we were in Earth’s southern hemisphere. We live in the yellow solar system, 400 lightyears from each of them so we see both events simultaneously, 400 years after they happened. We call that a coincidence and Cal’s skywatcher buddies go nuts. Suppose there are astronomers on the white and black systems.”

<grins> “Those four colors aren’t random, Mr Moire.”

<grins back> “Caught me, Jeremy. Anyway, the white system’s astronomers see Vela’s nova 200 years after they see the one in Lupus. The astronomers in the black system record just the reverse sequence. Neither community even thinks of the two as a pair. No coincidence for them, no role for narrativium.”

~ Rich Olcott

  • This is the 531st post in an unbroken decade‑long weekly series that I originally thought might keep going for 6 months. <whew!>

Confluence

On By rolcottIn Astronomy, Astronomy: Multi-messenger, General: Fun Stuff, UncategorizedLeave a comment

“My usual cup of — Whoa! Jeremy, surprised to see you behind the counter here. Where’s Cal?”

“Hi, Mr Moire. Cal just got three new astronomy magazines in the same delivery so he’s over there bingeing. He said if I can handle the pizza place gelato stand he can trust me with his coffee and scones. I’m just happy to get another job ’cause things are extra tough back on the rez these days. Here’s your coffee, which flavor scone can I get for you?”

“Thanks, Jeremy. Smooth upsell. I’ll take a strawberry one. … Morning, Cal. Having fun?”

“Morning, Sy. Yeah, lotsa pretty pictures to look at. Funny coincidence, all three magazines have lists of coincidences. This one says February 23, 1987 we got a neutrino spike from supernova SN 1987A right after we saw its light. The coincidence told us that neutrinos fly almost fast as light so the neutrino’s mass gotta be pretty small. 1987’s also the year the Star Tours Disney park attractions opened for the Star Wars fans. The very same year Gene Roddenberry and the Paramount studio released the first episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. How about that?”

“Pretty good year.”

“Mm‑hm. Didja know here in 2025 we’ve got that Mercury‑Venus‑Jupiter-Saturn‑Uranus‑Neptune straight‑line arrangement up in the sky and sometimes the Moon lines up with it?”

“I’ve read about it.”

“Not only that, but right at the September equinox, Neptune’s gonna be in opposition. That means our rotation axis will be broadside to the Sun just as Neptune will be exactly behind us. It’ll be as close to us as it can get and it’s face‑on to the Sun so it’s gonna be at its brightest. Cool, huh?”

“Good time for Hubble Space Telescope to take another look at it.”

“Those oughta be awesome images. Here’s another coincidence — Virgo’s the September sign, mostly, and its brightest star is Spica. All the zodiac constellations are in the ecliptic plane where all the planet orbits are. Planets can get in the way between us and Spica. The last planet to do that was Venus in 1783. The next planet to do that will be Venus again, in 2197.”

“That’ll be a long wait. You’ve read off things we see from Earth. How about interesting coincidences out in the Universe?”

“Covered in this other magazine’s list. Hah, they mention 1987, too, no surprise. Ummm, in 2017 the Fermi satellite’s GRB instrument registered a gamma‑ray burst at the same time that LIGO caught a gravitational wave from the same direction. With both light and gravity in the picture they say it was two neutron stars colliding.”

“Another exercise in multi-messenger astronomy. Very cool.”

“Ummm … Galaxy NGC 3690 shot off two supernovas just a few months apart last year. Wait, that name’s familiar … Got it, it’s half of Arp 299. 299’s a pair of colliding galaxies so there’s a lot of gas and dust and stuff floating around to set off stars that are in the brink. If I remember right, we’ve seen about eight supers there since 2018.”

“Hmm, many events with a common cause. Makes sense.”

“Oh, it’s a nice idea, alright, but explain V462 Lupi and V572 Velorum. Just a couple months ago, two novas less than 2 weeks apart in two different constellations 20 degrees apart in the sky. Bright enough you could see ’em both with good eyes if you were below the Equator and knew where to look and looked in the first week of June. My skywatcher internet buddies down there went nuts.”

“How far are those events from us?”

“The magazine doesn’t say. Probably the astronomers are still working on it. Could be ten thousand lightyears, but I’d bet they’re a lot closer than that.”

“On average, visible stars are about 900 lightyears away. Twenty degrees would put them about 300 lightyears apart. They’re separated by a slew of stars that haven’t blown up. One or both could be farther away than that, naturally. Whatever, it’s hard to figure a coordinating cause for such a distant co‑occurrence. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.”

Adapted from images by
IAU and Sky & Telescope magazine
(Roger Sinnott & Rick Fienberg)
CC BY 3.0

~ Rich Olcott

Up, Down And Between

On By rolcottIn Physics: Entropy and Thermodynamics, Uncategorized1 Comment

Vinnie finishes his double‑pepperoni pizza. “Sy, these enthalpies got a pressure‑volume part and a temperature‑heat capacity part, but seems to me the most important part is the chemical energy.”

I’m still working on my slice (cheese and sausage). “That’s certainly true from a fuel engineering perspective, Vinnie. Here’s a clue. Check the values in this table for 0°C, also known as 273K.”

Link to Larger image

“Waitaminute! That line says the enthalpy’s exactly zero under the book‘s conditions. We talked about zeros a long time ago. All measurements have error. Nothing’s exactly zero unless it’s defined that way or it’s Absolute Zero temperature and we’ll never get there. Is this another definition thing?”

“More of a convenience thing. The altimeters in those planes you fly, do they display the distance to Earth’s center?”

“Nope, altitude above sea level, if they’re calibrated right.”

“But the other would work, too, say as a percentage of the average radius?”

“Not really. Earth’s fatter at the Equator than it is at the poles. You’d always have to correct for latitude. And the numbers would be clumsy, always some fraction of a percent of whatever the average is—”

“6371 kilometers.”

“Yeah, that. Try working with fractions of a part per thousand when you’re coming in through a thunderstorm. Give me kilometers or feet above sea level and I’m a lot happier.”

“But say you’re landing in Denver, 1.6 kilometers above sea level.”

“It’s a lot easier to subtract 1.6 from baseline altitude in kilometers than 0.00025 from 1.00something and getting the decimals right. Sea‑level calibrations are a lot easier to work with.”

“So now you know why the book shows zero enthalpy for water at 273K.”

“You’re saying there’s not really zero chemical energy in there, it’s just a convenient place to start counting?”

“That’s exactly what I’m saying. Chemical energy is just another form of potential energy. Zeroes on a potential scale are arbitrary. What’s important is the difference between initial and final states. Altitude’s about gravitational potential relative to the ground; chemists care about chemical potential relative to a specific reaction’s final products. Both concerns are about where you started and where you stop.”

“Gimme a chemical f’rinstance.”

<reading off of Old Reliable> “Reacting 1 gram of oxygen gas and 0.14 gram of hydrogen gas slowly in a catalytic fuel cell at 298K and atmospheric pressure produces one gram of liquid water and releases 18.1 kilojoules of energy. Exploding the same gas mix at the same pressure in a piston also yields 18.1 kilojoules once you cool everything back down to 298K. Different routes, same results.”

Meanwhile, Jeremy’s wandered over from his gelato stand. “Excuse me, Mr Moire. I read your Crazy Theory about how mammals like to keep their body temperature in the range near water’s minimum Specific Heat, um Heat Capacity, but now I’m confused.”

“What’s the confusion, Jeremy?”

“Well, what you told me before made sense, about increased temperature activates higher‑energy kinds of molecular waggling to absorb the heat. But that means that Heat Capacity always ought to increase with increasing temperature, right?”

“Good thinking. So your problem is…?

“Your graph shows that if water’s cold, warming it decreases its Heat Capacity. Do hotter water molecules waggle less?”

“No, it’s a context thing. Gas and liquid are different contexts. Each molecule in a gas is all by itself, most of the time, so its waggling is determined only by its internal bonding and mass configuration. Put that molecule into a liquid or solid, it’s subject to what its neighbors are doing. Water’s particularly good at intermolecular interactions. You know about the hexagonal structure locked into ice and snowflakes. When water ice melts but it’s still at low temperature, much of the hexagonal structure hangs around in a mushy state. A loose structure’s whole‑body quivering can absorb heat energy without exciting waggles in its constituent molecules. Raising the temperature disrupts that floppy structure. That’s most of the fall on the Heat Capacity curve.”

“Ah, then the Sensitivity decrease on the high‑temperature side has to do with blurry structure bits breaking down to tinier pieces that warm up more from less energy. Thanks, Mr Moire.”

“Don’t mention it.”

~~ Rich Olcott

The Trough And The Plateau

On By rolcottIn Astronomy: Planetary Science, Mathematics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

Particularly potent pepperoni on Pizza Eddie’s special tonight so I dash to the gelato stand. “Two dips of pistachio in a cup, please, Jeremy, and hurry. Hey, why the glum look?”

“The season’s moving so slowly, Mr Moire. I’m a desert kid, used to bright skies. I need sunlight! We’re getting just a few hours of cloudy daylight each day. It seems like we’re never gonna leave this pattern. Here’s your gelato.”

“Thanks. Sorry about the cloudiness, it’s the wintertime usual around here. But you’re right, we’re on a plateau.”

“Nosir, the Plateau’s the Four Corners area, on the other side of the Rockies, miles and miles away from here.”

<chuckle> “Not the Colorado Plateau, the darkness plateau. Or the daylight trough, if you prefer. Buck up, we’ll get a daylight plateau starting in a few months.” <unholstering Old Reliable> “Here’s a plot of daylight hours through the year at various northern latitudes. We’re in between the red and green curves. For folks south of the Equator that’d just turn upside‑down, of course. I added a star at today’s date in mid‑December, see. We’re just shy of the winter solstice; the daylight hours are approaching the minimum. You’re feeling stressed because these curves don’t change much day-to-day near minimum or maximum. In a couple of weeks the curve will bend upwards again. Come the Spring equinox, you’ll be shocked at how rapidly the days lengthen.”

“Yeah, my Mom says I’m too impatient. She says that a lot. Okay, above the Arctic Circle they’ve got months‑long night and then months‑long day, I’ve read about that. I hadn’t realized it was a one‑day thing at the Circle. Hey, look at the straight lines leading up to and away from there. Is that the Summer solstice? Those low‑latitude curves look like sine waves. Are they?”

“Summer solstice in the northern hemisphere, Winter solstice for the southerners. The curves are distorted sines. Ready for a surprise?”

<Looks around the nearly empty eatery.> “With business this slow I’m just sitting here so I’m bored. Surprise me, please.”

“Sure. One of the remarkable things about a sine wave is, when you graph its slopes you get another sine wave shifted back a quarter. Here, check it out.”

“Huh! When the sine wave’s mid-climb, the slope’s at its peak. When the sine wave’s peaking, the slope’s going through zero on the way down. And they do have exactly the same shape. I see where you’re going, Mr Miore. You’re gonna show me the slopes of the daylight graphs to see if they’re really sine waves.”

“You’re way ahead of me and Old Reliable, Jeremy.” <frantic tapping on OR’s screen> “There, point‑by‑point slopes for each of the graphs. Sorta sine‑ish near the Equator but look poleward.”

“The slopes get higher and flatter until the the Arctic Circle line suddenly drops down to flip its sign. Those verticals are the solstices, right?”

“Right. Notice that even at the Circle the between‑solstice slopes aren’t quite constant so the straight lines you eye‑balled aren’t quite that. North of the Circle the slopes go nuts because of the abrupt shifts between varying and constant sun.”

Link to larger image

“How do you get these curves, Mr Moire?”

“It’s a series of formulas. Dust off your high school trig. The Solar Declination Angle equation is about the Sun’s height above or below the horizon. It depends on Earth’s year length, its axial tilt and the relative date, t=T‑T0. For these charts I set T0 to the Spring equinox. If the height’s negative the Sun’s below the horizon, okay?”

“Sine function is opposite‑over‑hypotenuse and the height’s opposite alright or we’d burn up, yup.”

“The second formula gives the the Hour Angle between your longitude and whichever longitude has the Sun at its zenith.”

“Why would you want that?”

“Because it’s the heart of the duration formula. When you roll all three formulas together you get one big expression that gives daylight duration in terms of Earth’s constants, time of year and your location. That’s what I plotted.”

“How about the slope curves?”

“Calculus, Jeremy, d/dt of that combined duration function. It’s beyond my capabilities but Old Reliable’s up to it.”

~ Rich Olcott

Rumford’s Boring Story

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

“Okay, Mr Moire, my grandfather’s engineering handbook has Specific Heat tables because Specific Heat measures molecular wabbling. If he’s got them, though, why’s Enthalpy in the handbook, too?”

“Enthalpy’s not my favorite technical term, Jeremy. It’s wound up in a centuries‑old muddle. Nobody back then had a good, crisp notion of energy. Descartes, Leibniz, Newton and a host of German engineers and aristocratic French hobby physicists all recognized that something made motion happen but everyone had their own take on what that was and how to calculate its effects. They used a slew of terms like vis viva, ‘quantity of motion,’ ‘driving force,’ ‘quantity of work,’ a couple of different definitions of ‘momentum‘ — it was a mess. It didn’t help that a lot of the argument went on before Euler’s algebraic notations were widely adopted; technical arguments without math are cumbersome and can get vague and ambiguous. Lots of lovely theories but none of them worked all that well in the real world.”

“Isn’t that usually what happens? I always have problems in the labs.”

“You’re not alone. Centuries ago, Newton’s Laws of Motion and Gravity made good predictions for planets, not so good for artillery trajectories. Gunners always had to throw in correction factors because their missiles fell short. Massachusetts‑born Benjamin Thompson, himself an artilleryman, found part of the reason.”

“Should I know that name?”

“In later years he became Count Rumford. One of those people who get itchy if they’re not creating something. He was particularly interested in heat — how to trap it and how to make it go where you want.”

“Wait, he was an American but he was a Count? I thought that was illegal.”

“Oh, he left the States before they were the States. During the Revolution he organized a Royalist militia in New York and then lit out for Europe. The Bavarians made him a Count after he spent half‑a‑dozen years doing creative things like reorganizing their army, building public works and introducing potato farming. He concocted a nourishing soup for the poor and invented the soup line for serving it up. But all this time his mind was on a then‑central topic of Physics — what is heat?”

“That was the late 1700s? When everyone said heat was some sort of fluid they called ‘caloric‘?”

“Not everyone, and in fact there were competing theories about caloric — an early version of the particle‑versus‑wave controversy. For a while Rumford even supported the notion that ‘frigorific’ radiation transmitted cold the same way that caloric rays transmitted heat. Whatever, his important contributions were more practical and experimental than theoretical. His redesign of the common fireplace was such an improvement that it took first England and then Europe by storm. Long‑term, though, we remember him for a side observation that he didn’t think important enough to measure properly.”

“Something to do with heat, I’ll bet.”

“Of course. As a wave theory guy, Rumford stood firmly against the ‘caloric is a fluid‘ camp. ‘If heat is material,‘ he reasoned, ‘then a heat‑generating process must eventually run out of caloric.’ He challenged that notion by drilling out a cannon barrel while it was immersed in cold water. A couple of hours of steady grinding brought the water up to boiling. The heating was steady, too, and apparently ‘inexhaustible.’ Better yet, the initial barrel, the cleaned‑out barrel and the drilled‑out shavings all had the same specific heat so no heat had been extracted from anything. He concluded that heat is an aspect of motion, totally contradicting the leading caloric theories and what was left of phlogiston.”

<chuckle> “He was a revolutionary, after all. But what about ‘Enthalpy‘?”

“Here’s an example. Suppose you’ve got a puddle of gasoline, but its temperature is zero kelvins and somehow it’s compressed to zero volume. Add energy to those waggling molecules until the puddle’s at room temperature. Next, push enough atmosphere out of the way to let the puddle expand to its normal size. Pushing the atmosphere takes energy, too — the physicists call that ‘PV work‘ because it’s calculated as the pressure times the volume. The puddle’s enthalpy is its total energy content — thermal plus PV plus the chemical energy you get when it burns.”

~~ Rich Olcott