### Month: January 2016

The pulling force that keeps all matter together is called gravity. As the matter increases so does the gravitational force. The amount of matter in something is measured by mass. When things are huge they exert more gravitational force. A very good example of gravitational force is the force exerted by Earth. When we walk the earth pulls us towards it and on the contrary we pull the earth towards us. However since the earth is massive we are not able to move it. The earths force is much higher and is powerful enough to make a person face down.

Gravity depends on the mass and also the distance. This is exactly why we still remain on the earth and are not pulled out into space by the sun which has a gravitational force that is many times more powerful than that of Earth.

All about Space-time and its fundamentals

Things start and happen in space. Time is considered to be when these things happen. It is necessary to combine these two elements to actually understand the universe.

Another fundamental is that though light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second and you are in motion one might perceive that time travels faster which is not the reality

The Anti-gravity wheel

A wheel of 19 kg is lifted overhead using just one hand while the wheel is spinning at a few thousand RPM. The wheel at this point felt as light as a feather and this was due to the Gyroscopic precession.

The object’s weight produces a torque and this is why the wheel feels light when spinning. The torque vector is seen to increase the angular momentum in the same direction of the torque. Now when there is no angular momentum at the start, the new momentum will cause it to swing in the direction of torque. Now if there was an angular momentum at the start then the direction will be changed towards the angular momentum that causes precession.

Time travel by Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking researches the actual requirements for the concept of travelling time. He has provided detailed instructions to build a time travelling machine. He says that the requirements are very simple because it one takes a worm hole, a rocket or a large hadron collider to build the machine.

The premise is rooted in Einstein’s theory of relativity and Hawking believes that since time moves faster in certain places one can use this to move and travel to the future however impossible to travel to the past.

A very hypothetical process by which the climate and surface of the planet Mars would be changed to accommodate humans thereby making colonization of Mars easier and safe is called terraforming of Mars. It is simply the transformation of the planet to allow the human race to safely inhabit it.

Terraforming concepts are numerous, however only a few seem to be achievable using technology of the modern world. Some concepts are close to impossible due to the heavy costs predicted, both natural and economic.

Factors that led to the thought of terraforming Mars

Anything that is deliberately done will have a motivational factor associated. Similarly the factors that led to the concept are the high demand for resources, population explosion and finally the doomsday theory. Mars is the closest to earth when it comes to livability and is said to have had thicker atmosphere and Earth like conditions earlier on. This planet is considered the most available because of its proximity from Earth, its water availability and similarity to our planet.

Challenges faced

· The environmental factors may pose a challenge in terraforming Mars.

· The pressure and gravity in Mars is considerably low

· The atmospheric pressure being very low will cause the bodily fluids to boil away.

· Even if breathable oxygen is provided in plenty, the low pressure will cause death in a few minutes.

Overcoming effects of the weather in space

The thin atmosphere of the planet may be the resultant of the absence of a magnetosphere. This causes the inability to mitigate solar radiation and thereby preventing the retaining of atmosphere.

The Ozone helps in providing protection from Ultraviolet light as it is blocked even before it breaks into hydrogen and oxygen.

Mars would require a magnetic field closer to what the Earth has in order to offset the effects of the solar wind.

Theorists have come up with the theory that Mars is located in the outer most layer of what is termed as habitable. This is a region in the solar system where life is possible. The location of Mars is in an area where life is possible if the greenhouse gases increases the atmospheric pressure considerably.

The atmosphere of Mars contains many elements such as nitrogen, sulphur, hydrogen, oxygen and carbon and all these are crucial for life to exist.

An abundant of carbon-di-oxide is present as atmospheric content. A process called electrolysis could be applied to split oxygen and hydrogen but it is possible only if a good amount of electricity and water is available.

Strategies proposed

In order to colonise Mars it is required to build up the atmosphere, keep it warm and the atmosphere needs to be kept from being lost to space. The atmospheric pressure being very low makes it difficult to keep the atmosphere within.

Of all of the anomalies in modern science, especially in the micro-world of particle physics and quantum mechanics that straddle the “I know what I saw” versus the “it can’t be therefore it isn’t” schools of philosophy is the “I know what I saw” enigma in atomic theory that dictates via actual experimental observation that atoms (hence all normal matter and antimatter) is 99.999% empty space. From our macro-world perspective we reply “it can’t be therefore it isn’t” because our world appears to be as close to 100% solid as makes no odds. We can’t pass through solid walls (only Casper the Friendly Ghost can really do that) and so we conclude again that “it can’t be therefore it isn’t”. It’s one of the rare times the scientist says “yes” and the layperson says “no way”.

If atoms are 99.999% empty space you’d think you’d have Superman’s X-Ray vision, only in the visible part of the spectrum, and could even without trying see through ‘solid’ matter, maybe even clear through Planet Earth* itself. Yet you can’t even see one millimetre into your own body. You might therefore conclude that there must be a sufficient number of atoms along your line of sight that ultimately block the visible light photons from passing on through whatever hunk of matter you are looking at**. Either that, or perhaps the wavelength of the visible light photons were such that they were too large to squeeze through the empty space inside of the atoms or the atomic structure concerned, like molecules. But that would be strange since the light-waves have no trouble passing through your eyeball and ultimately your eyeball is made up of atoms. Ah, but your eyeball, well your lens anyway, is transparent and that makes all the difference. Or does it?

You can see through many metres of distilled water, but probably not through many metres of pure distilled ice. There’s even less atoms in the pure ice since ice is less dense than liquid water which makes this even more of an anomaly than would otherwise be the case.

In a really real reality, if all of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that collective form water and ice were 99.999% empty space, then both pure water and pure ice would be equally transparent or equally opaque. But that’s not the case. Something’s screwy somewhere.

You can see through many metres of distilled water, but not through even one millimetre of liquid mercury.

In a really real reality, if all water molecules (i.e. – hydrogen and oxygen atoms) were 99.999% empty space, and if all mercury atoms were 99.999% empty space, then both multi meters worth of water and especially one millimetre worth of mercury should be equally transparent or equally opaque. But they aren’t.

You can see through several metres of clear window glass but not if the same glass is frosted.

In a really real reality, if all the molecules composed of the atoms that make up clear window glass were 99.999% empty space, then both clear window glass and frosted window glass should be equally transparent or equally opaque. But they are not.

You can see through several centimetres of solid clear plastic but not if you so much as add a thin film of black paint to the surface of the plastic.

In a really real reality, if all the atoms that make up those solid clear plastic molecules were 99.999% empty space, and all the atoms that make up the molecules that make up black paint were 99.999% empty space, then solid clear plastic as well as solid clear plastic coated with a thin layer of black paint should be equally transparent or equally opaque. But that’s not the case.

You could probably see through hundreds of kilometres of pure gaseous hydrogen, helium, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, etc. but not through that thickness of chlorine gas.

In a really real reality, if all hydrogen, helium, chlorine, etc. atoms were 99.999% empty space, then hydrogen, helium, chlorine, etc. should be equally transparent or equally opaque. But chlorine gas is not transparent and hydrogen gas is not opaque over hundreds of kilometres.

So transparency has nothing to do with how many atoms are in your line of sight and blocking out the photons from reaching you by passing through from across the other side. It has nothing to do with the wavelength since one wavelength within the visible light spectrum can make it through many metres of pure distilled water but not though the equivalent of pure ice.

Or, take yet another example, light will pass through one millimetre of pure diamond but not through one millimetre of pure graphite or of pure coal. So? Well in all three cases all you have are plain carbon atoms. How is this explained since all carbon atoms are 99.999% empty space?

In a really real reality, if all carbon atoms were 99.999% empty space, then coal, graphite and diamond would be equally transparent or equally opaque. But they are not.

You know what’s coming next! It’s all a computer simulation and different substances (like ice and water; or coal, graphite and diamond; or chlorine and nitrogen or hydrogen) have been coded with different physical properties independent of the number of simulated atoms that make up those virtual reality substances.

Virtual reality gives us the illusion of ‘solid’ matter even though the matter in question is 99.999% empty space. You can’t walk through ‘solid’ walls because that’s in the programming in the same way that our video game characters can’t walk through their apparently ‘solid’ walls (Casper the exception) because that’s in their programming.

What’s in it for the entities, the Supreme Programmer(s) who have programmed things this way? Basically they could simulate our entire visible Universe using just 0.001% of the bits and bytes that would otherwise be required if they tried to simulate our visible Universe as really 100% solid matter***.

Think of it this way. You could design and construct a building using 1,000,000 100% solid bricks, or use 1,000,000 hollow bricks each brick a tiny fraction of the mass of the 100% solid brick. In either case you get the same building!

*Of course if that were the case any photons would pass right through you and your own eyes and you’d be for all practical purposes blind.

**If an atom is 99.999% empty space, then presumably anything 10,000 atoms or more in thickness should be opaque. But a 10,000 atomic thick thickness isn’t really very thick at all, so why are really thick transparent substances transparent? It’s unlikely in the extreme that photons from behind the transparent substance in question would hit the atom’s nucleus and/or its ‘orbiting’ electrons and hit just so as to be unimpeded in its journey toward your eyeball. There should be totally random scattering all over the place with only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction, if any, making it to your eye bounce by bounce by bounce off of the obstacle course of nuclei / electrons.

***Actually the savings are even greater since you can simulate an entire star or even galaxy with a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the resources that would be required to simulate in exacting 100% full detail a star or a galaxy. No? Well planetariums do it all the time. Planetariums can simulate the entire visible Universe with just a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the resources required to reproduce the actual visible Universe.

Sometimes you have a new thought, an idea, or eureka moment, but it’s not gutsy enough to expand into a reasonable length article or essay. So, here’s yet a third pot-pourri of thoughts dealing with physics and related too good not to record, but with not enough meat available to flesh out.

* In reviewing several of my essays I’ve noted that I’ve occasionally said that there is just the one physics, yet I’ve often said for the record that quantum physics and classical physics (General Relativity) are incompatible and forever will be. In other words, there’s no quantum gravity and no Theory of Everything (TOE). Is this in conflict? No. There is the one physics even though you’d be hard pressed to unify thermodynamics with levers, inclined planes and pulleys.

* Universal Parameters: You cannot determine from first principles what the properties of the Universe, or the fundamental particles that make up the Universe, are. They apparently can have free range. A proton is 2000 times more massive than an electron, but you can’t calculate that from the theoretical laws, principles and relationships of physics. It’s only determined experimentally. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why the proton couldn’t have been 0.2, 2, 20, 200 or 20,000 times the mass of an electron. The same applies to the relative forces. The theoretical laws, principles and relationships of physics do not require an opposite yet of equal value charge between the negative electron and the positive proton. Presumably the value of each could have been as far apart as their masses – that is a proton could have been 2000 times as positive as the electron is negative. Why not? There’s no reason why not apart from the fact that the Universe as we know it wouldn’t work, but then we wouldn’t be here to worry about that or what might have been.

* We’re all taught in high school the above, that the electric charge of an electron is equal and opposite to that of a proton. The ‘why’ of the relationship is never explained in any shape, manner or form. I’ve never seen an explanation given in any popular particle or quantum physics book. Now either the explanation is so bloody obvious authors don’t feel the need to explain the ‘why’ of the matter and insult the reader’s intelligence, or else the ‘why’ is in the way, way, way too hard basket and authors avoid the question and the issue to avoid appearing ignorant about so fundamental a fact.

* Black Holes would make excellent, in fact perfect, Thermos (vacuum) flasks. Pour into a Black Hole the contents of a star, say like the Sun. All that heat is then trapped and I do mean trapped!

* Light is a thing; gravity is a thing; things can affect each other, so when it comes to the bending of light in a gravitational field, there’s no need for all this nonsense of warped space, time or space-time, which, after all, are not-things but just mental concepts.

* If something quantum happens for no reason at all (i.e. – unstable nuclei goes poof) why doesn’t everything micro happen for no reason at all. Or, if some quantum happenings are just probabilities, why aren’t all micro happenings probabilities.

* An isolated neutron has a half-life of roughly 15 minutes before going poof or decaying into a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino. Neutrons that ‘live’ in a community of neutrons like in the nucleus of atoms; as in a neutron star, don’t decay. They are stable in these community relations. That seems like something is screwy somewhere. Why is it so? I thought that might explain why the hydrogen atom (otherwise known as protium) had no neutron (just one electron and one proton), but then heavy hydrogen (deuterium) does have one neutron (plus one electron and one proton) so things get weirder and weirder.

* You obviously relate to being a human in a human-sized world. You can imagine being a cat or a dog and living in their world. You can probably extend that down to the world of insects and imagine yourself as a fly or ant or butterfly. At a stretch, you might be able to relate to and imagine yourself as a micro-organism living in say a drop of pond water or in the blood stream. But what about navigating down to the worldview of a photon or an electron? That I suspect is way, way, way too alien to imagine in your wildest dreams.

* We conceive of nanotechnology as building up from micro scratch what technology we want (say micro devices to traverse our blood vessels and clean them up from the inside) by manipulating atoms from the ground up and building whatever we want from those fundamental ‘Lego’ blocks. But what if the fundamental particles are themselves products of nanotechnology?