Apr 8 2004

It should be common knowledge that our planet lies, in relation to the rest of the solar system, in what you would call a "comfort zone" for life. Meaning it's not too hot and not too cold. It's true though life can survive in the most extreme conditions and were talking about bacteria, but for the most part, large, complex bio-organisims require a moderate and stable environment, temperature wise, to survive. Take Mars for example, it gets far too cold for any life to exsist and this is because it is outside the comfort zone. However, has Mars always been outside this comfort zone? Has Earth always been in this comfort zone? That's what I will try to answer today.

It should come as common sense to know that the distance from a star to any given planet in its solar system is the primary factor to calculate where such a comfort zone would be. Something rarely ever mentioned or forgotten till you start to think about it is the size of the star must also be factored into that observation. Because if a star is X size and the comfort zone is D distance according to X then we know that if X is increased or decreased then D changes accordingly. Simply because a larger sun will put out more energy and a smaller sun less energy. X and D will obey an inverse square law. An inverse square law states that the intensity of radiation will proportionally decrease over distance by a factor of square root. Or another way of saying it, the energy twice as far from the source is spread over four times the area, hence one-fourth the intensity.

It may also be worth mentioning that any planet that could be classified as in a comfort zone would need to orbit at a constant distance to it's star, like the Earth does, so no eliptical orbits or the deal is off. An eliptical orbit would basically bring it in and out of a comfort zone regularly. And yes there are planets that do not maintain a constant radius from host star, although rare.

Generally you know that the closer to a star the hotter an object is, and farther away, colder. This is not always the case. What we are talking about now is gravitational heating. Saturn for example has many moons, between them a tug of war can occur and will heat the core of a neighboring moon to the point where it's surface is quite warm, and in some cases active volcanos are seen. A comfort zone for life can certainly be realized in such cases.

For now lets focus on the Sun in relation to providing a comfort zone. Has our Sun always been the same size? This is an important question because if not the comfort zone would have changed over time. For example, if our sun was slightly larger, Mars would be in the comfort zone today. The Earth would probably be quite hot. You would think though that over the course of a stars life it does in fact lose mass constantly. This is true. Was Mars in the comfort zone way back when? Is the Earth always going to be in the comfort zone? Lets not skip way ahead to the near death of the Sun because we already know that it will swell up into a red giant. Lets just consider 1 billion to 2 billion years from now. How much energy and mass will the Sun lose in such time? Quite a bit actually. The comfort zone would now be somewhere between Venus and Earth, just a guess. The main point being the Earth will become much colder, Mars even colder.

If some time back, Mars was in the comfort zone, is it possible the begining signs of life began to emerge? Yet failed for some reason unlike Earth. Could this in fact all be attributed to a change in comfort zone? I say maybe.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/
On a side not NASA will launch Gravity Probe B very soon. You should already know how I feel about this. The results should be uninteresting, well I shouldn't say that, anyway, I think it will be a success to them, I think the ball will move, but for reasons other than what they think. The results will neither confirm nor deny in my mind a flawed explanation of gravity that being GR. It think the most intriging aspect of the mission is the technology that went into it. This is really cutting edge science. If the ball does move, obviously the more support for GR. The problem being if we really believe in GR as fact then people will probably forget gravity, "we already know how it works" "Gravity probe B proved GR true" the more difficult to present alternative, possibly more accurate theories of gravity.

More on this later.

Asteriods
-Composition - spin
-Methods of deterant
-Thermonuclear blastoff
-Lensing probe
-antimatter

I seen a program on TV about methods to deter threatening asteroids. Couple thought known facts I would like to make about these objects. The composition of them can vary greatly to hard as a iron or soft as charcoal. Doesn't matter what they are made of in the end, when they hit, they will Hit. They think they know which are which by the spin of them, the faster the spin the harder they are, ok sounds reasonable. How do you go about eliminating them?
It really is quite a puzzle, go ahead try to come up with an idea. One idea is to detonate a nuke next to it thus altering its course away from the Earth. Now a problem is like I said, not all are made of dense material, detonating a nuke next to a soft composition asteroid will do virtually nothing because it will absorb the impact. You can't nuke it on the surface or drill into it either - a soft one will again, absorb the impact, a hard one will fragment and you now are dealing with a cluster bomb, every bit as catastrophic.

One guy suggested a large lens probe that would burn the surface of the asteroid just like you would a magnifying glass. This would create a jet stream and a push to alter its trajectory. Its not a bad idea really among so few ideas there are, If it works. The general idea is to have a fair warning to this event so it can act on it for several years. That's great and all but not all asteroids are detected so early. The ones that are really cause for concern are the ones that come to us from the direction of the Sun. These only show up when the Sun heats them and a gas tail forms.

So it's easy to say we dont really have a solution whatsoever. Some of these are 18 miles wide traveling at rediculous speeds I mean really, how do you stop them?

Here is what I thought of

First one. Might sound funny, but if you could manufacture and deliver a device or several that will basically, well eat it... Stone goes in dust comes out. "Self automated rock grinder." *grin* Whatever you can do to get it to softened up so the atmosphere can finish it off, thats what you need to do. This obviously is not so practical when your dealing with 18 mile wide objects...

Chemically desolving it by whatever means wouldn't work, number 1 because you couldn't deliver enough of chemical X and number 2 it would be more harmful to us raining down in the atmosphere then the asteroid itself probably.

Launching a device that would plant itself into the asteroid and have a propulsion system at the opposite end to "fly" the asteroid away wouldn't work either because 1, you would run out of fuel in no time and 2, the momentum and inertia not to mention the size of the asteroid would be far too great. And lastly the asteroid is spinning so you'd first have to stop it from spinning and thats not going to happen.

Antimatter. Self explanitory, several antimatter bombs are sent to the object to disintegrate it. This technology is not yet developed I do not believe. But, we know that when matter and antimatter come together they annihilate each other. This really is what you want, not to thwart its path but to destroy it outright if at all possible. Perhaps what I am talking about is Positron Annihilation. The positron is the antiparticle of the electron, and when a positron enters any normal matter, it will find an abundant supply of electrons with which to annihilate. The energy released by the annihilation forms highly energetic gamma rays. In essence what you are left with is a very light element with few electrons. Hydrogen for example has 1 electron and is one of the lightest elements. What you are really doing is converting mass into otherwise harmless energy if diverted.

Just to give you some perspective, next time you are driving in your car, imagine a rock above you as far as the eye can see.. coming at you at supersonic speed. You of course, would be vaporized even before it touched due to the heated air in front of it. If hit in the ocean, the tidal waves would be up to 2 miles high. If hit on land, the shockwave would travel from texas to new york in less than 2 seconds.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/
What is GP-B?

"Gravity Probe B is the relativity gyroscope experiment being developed by NASA and Stanford University to test two extraordinary, unverified predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.

The experiment will check, very precisely, tiny changes in the direction of spin of four gyroscopes contained in an Earth satellite orbiting at 400-mile altitude directly over the poles. So free are the gyroscopes from disturbance that they will provide an almost perfect space-time reference system. They will measure how space and time are warped by the presence of the Earth, and, more profoundly, how the Earth's rotation drags space-time around with it. These effects, though small for the Earth, have far-reaching implications for the nature of matter and the structure of the Universe."

-----------
This decription alone is very open for interpretation of what gravity is and how it works regardless of results. I have a very similar description for gravity in relation to frame-dragging however my gravity model is quite different.
And what is confusing, the results of the test may confirm both theories ideas. And in the end we are back where we started. How does gravity work on the quantum scale? This experiment will Not answer this question. But there is that phrase again "warping of space-time". When you here the word warp what do you think of? You should think of a semisolid at least surface, you for example would not use the word warp to describe the effect a rock has on the surface of water. My point being the fabric of space, ether, whatever you want to call it, quite frankly It doesnt matter, is not able to be "warped". It is analogous to a gas or liquid at best(free moving), but certainly not a solid, not a grid, not anything remotely like what could be described in the context of being able to be warped.
-----------

Continued...

"What is a gyroscope ? The first, invented in 1852 by the French physicist J. B. L. Foucault, was an instrument for studying the Earth's rotation by means of a freely suspended flywheel. Since then gyroscopes have found many applications, especially in navigation, and many types exist. The ones for Gravity Probe B are not flywheels but electrically supported spheres, spinning in a vacuum. Others utilize the spins of atomic nuclei, circulating sound waves, even circulating laser beams. In all gyroscopes the underlying principle is that rotating systems, free from disturbing forces, should stay pointing in the same direction in space.

But what does "the same direction in space" mean? For Newton the answer was easy. Space and time were absolutes. A perfect gyroscope set spinning and pointed at a star would stay aligned forever. Not so for Einstein. Space-time is warped -- and may even be set in motion by moving matter. A gyroscope orbiting the Earth finds two distinct space-time processes -- frame-dragging and the geodetic effect -- gradually changing its direction of spin.

The Gravity Probe B experiment comprises four gyroscopes and a reference telescope sighted on HR8703 (also known as IM Pegasus), a binary star in the constellation Pegasus. In polar orbit, with the gyro spin directions also pointing toward HR8703, the frame-dragging and geodetic effects come out at right angles, each gyroscope measuring both. What do the two measurements signify, and how does Gravity Probe B differ from all previous tests of general relativity, positive or negative?

First, Gravity Probe B contrasts with earlier tests (redshift measurements apart) in being a physics experiment, not a disentangling of complex phenomena in stars or the solar system. Events are under the experimenters' control; disturbing effects are eliminated rather than calculated out; exact calibration checks can be performed on orbit to authenticate the results.

Second, Gravity Probe B supplies two new, very precise tests of relativistic effects on massive bodies. Relativity experiments form three groups, based respectively on clocks, electromagnetic waves, and massive bodies. Amazingly, except for the possible radiation drag in the binary pulsar, there is still only one secure positive result with massive bodies -- perihelion precession. Yet such tests are crucial in exploring the differences between Einstein's and Newton's dynamics. Compare, for example, starlight deflection with the geodetic precession of a gyroscope, two effects often bracketed together since both check the curvature of space-time. Starlight deflection follows from the electromagnetic theory of light plus a special limiting case of Einstein's equations. The gyroscope effects, both frame-dragging and geodetic, follow from the conservation laws for massive spinning bodies derived from Einstein's full field equations -- a critical element in the theory.

Third, most important, Gravity Probe B investigates the gravitational action of moving matter. Matter moving through space-time can be thought of as creating a new force -- gravitomagnetism -- which John Wheeler, dean of relativists, describes as being "as different from ordinary gravity as magnetism is from electricity." The frame-dragging measurement detects this force and fixes its scale. Commenting on its unverified status, Wheeler has said "It is hard to imagine a science so exposed for lack of evidence on a force so fundamental to the scheme of physics."

Frame-dragging and Grand Unification
The frame-dragging effect, small as it is for the Earth, reaches far. It may underlie processes that generate vast amounts of power in distant quasars; it may clarify a strange physical hypothesis called Mach's principle. Above all, it may throw light on grand unification. Grand unification is the greatest challenge confronting theoretical physicists today. Gravitation, the strong nuclear forces, and the partially unified electro-weak forces must be connected, but how? Even the issues remain speculative but several clues suggest that general relativity may require amendment, and that the amendment, in the words of Nobel laureate C. N. Yang "somehow entangles spin and rotation." Says Yang: "Einstein's general relativity theory, though profoundly beautiful, is likely to be amended.... That the amendment may not disturb the usual tests is easy to imagine, since the usual tests do not relate to spin[i.e. frame-dragging]. The Stanford experiment is especially interesting in that it focuses on the spin. I would not be surprised at all if it gives a result in disagreement with Einstein's theory."

But to measure this extraordinary effect an extraordinary gyroscope is needed"

For all the details visit the site, it is very lengthy.

It seems I made a mistake when I labeled the photon as the carrier particle of sound. This obviously can't be I said to myself, the photon travels at the speed of light, what the heck is the carrier of sound? And looking around I see it's supposedly the "Phonon". I dont believe I have ever heard of that particle, I guess its no surprise I assumed it was the photon somehow. But in any case, here is the definition from Wikipedia, I think youll find it quite confusing.

"A phonon is a quantized mode of vibration occurring in a rigid crystal lattice, such as the atomic lattice of a solid. The study of phonons is an important part of solid state physics, because they contribute to many of the physical properties of materials, such as thermal and electrical conductivity. For example, the propagation of phonons is responsible for the conduction of heat in insulators, and the properties of long-wavelength phonons gives rise to sound in solids (hence the name phonon).

According to a well-known result in classical mechanics, any vibration of a lattice can be decomposed into a superposition of normal modes of vibration. When these modes are analysed using quantum mechanics, they are found to possess some particle-like properties (see wave-particle duality.) When treated as particles, phonons are bosons possessing zero spin."

Now I dont know about you but that sounds alot like what a photon is responsible for, thermal heat ect. and electrical conductivity sounds like the electrons job. This particle the phonon must be the most untalked about fundemental particle in quantum physics if it exsists. I can name over 50 particles and there associated roles not once would I mention the phonon, because I've never heard of it! Interestingly enough, a phonon is a boson, a photon is also a boson.

"The Phonon Gas

- Consider thermally excited distribution of electromagnetic radiation in a cavity

- We can similarly deduce the thermally excited distribution of elastic vibration in a solid by describing acoustic radiation

- Just as photons are the quanta of electromagnetic radiation, phonons are the quanta of acoustic radiation.

- Just as photons are emitted and absorbed by vibrations of atoms, phonons are emitted and absorbed by vibrating atoms at the lattice points in the solid

- The source of each type of radiation is quantized so that the energy gain or loss is discrete ()

- Just as the number of photons is not fixed or conserved, the number of phonons is also not fixed or conserved.

- Because phonons propagate through a crystal lattice there are different energy-momentum relations than those for photons.

- Speak of the solid containing a gas of phonons

- And electron-phonon interactions are reponsible for superconductivity "

And another definition

"Phonon , a quantum of vibration. Every vibration can be decomposed in the elementary vibrations called phonons. The total number of phonons in a system that vibrates is related to the temperature of the system. At higher temperatures, vibration of an object is stronger and the number of phonons larger. As every phonon carries a quantum of vibrational energy, this means that the internal energy of the object is also larger."

http://www.physics.carleton.ca/courses/75.364/mp-2html/node16.html
And accoring to BCS Theory it states that an electron is the source and absorber of the phonon... Now I'm confused.

"BCS Theory
Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer proposed a detailed theory of superconductivity which is in excellent agreement with experiment.

An electron passing by adjacent ions in the lattice can act on the ions with a Coulomb attraction which gives each of them some momentum that causes them to move slightly together

(Recall the breaking of atoms energy degeneracies by the symmetry of the electron wavefunction as the atoms are brought together)

This region of increased positive charge density will propagage as a wave which carries momentum through the lattice

The electron has emitted a phonon!

A subsequent electron passing by the moving region of +ve charge density will experience an attractive Coulomb interaction and can absorb the momentum

ie. It absorbs the phonon

So the electrons have exchanged some momentum with each other through the exchange of a phonon

The interaction is an attractive interaction

Its like the following electron surfs on the virtual lattice wake of the leading electron.

BCS theory shows that in certain conditions the attraction between the 2 electrons due to a succession of phonon exchange can exceed slightly the (shielded) Coulomb repulsion between them

Then the electrons will be weakly bound together and form a Cooper pair.

The condition for their formation in numbers large enough to allow superconductivity are
The temperature be low enough so that the number of random thermal phonons be small
The interaction between an electron and phonon be large
The number of electrons in states below be large (energetically able to form Cooper pairs)
The two electrons have antiparallel spin (so space wfn is symmetric and therefore close enough to form a pair)
In the absence of an external electric field the electrons of a pair have linear momenta of equal magnitude but opposite direction

Because Cooper pairs are weakly bound they are contantly breaking up and reforming ...."

ect. ect.

Here we go...

"phonon absorption: Absorption of light energy by its conversion to vibrational energy"

The phonon is actually produced by a photon-electron interaction/exchange. The photon Is in one way or the other, the cause of sound after all. And we can deduced that the speed of sound is derived by the momentum/speed of vibrational energy as it, via wave action, propagates through matter. Come to think of it, why the need for such a particle like the phonon is unclear to me. If sound is basically the vibration of space-time ...

Actually on further thought it occured to me that there is no such thing as a phonon (at least in regards of quantum sound) and I will prove it. I had completely forgot what I know about how sound works, I feel like a idiot.

If you ever studied the human ear and how it works, you will know that vibrations of the space around your ear cause your eardrum to vibrate. This vibration of the eardrum is tranlated by the brain to what we percieve as sound. Our ear for example does not absorb any quanta of sound particle unlike our eyes that would absorb photons. Also, sound is a mechanical wave unlike EMR. One difference between the two is that a mechanical wave requires a medium in which to travel and cannot travel in a vaccum like light can.

It's quite astonishing when you think about it, in reality there is no such thing as sound. Sound and hearing is as a bizarre phenomenon as it gets. Your brain is telling you that you hear something, but that something is really just a vibration or physical disturbance in the space around you. What is even more remarkable is the sensitivity of your eardrum and the brains ability to pick up on these subtle changes in vibration patterns which are translated/decoded into pitch, tone, loudness ect. Picture this, a calm body of water, and now drop a rock that weighs 1.6g into it and observe the wave that is created. That wave is absolutely unique to a wave that would be created by a rock that weighs ever so slightly more or less. But it's not just the weight, its the shape, composition, velocity, direction, location, ect ect. It's the same thing with space-time, in a wave-like action, information that our brain translates into sound propagates. Space-time is almost infinately scaleable and dynamic in this respect, able to transfer almost unlimited differences in physical disturbances "sound" across it's medium and do so at what we measure as the speed of sound according to the medium. Who knows just how close to what space-time is capable of and actually sending, sound information wise, our brain picks up on. Its a question of just how sensitive our ear is and how much information is processed by our brain. There's no question though human hearing has become extremely advanced. That is the short version, but know this, sound is a mechanical wave through whatever medium it propagates.

I think in retrospect what threw me off was the percpetion of radio waves as sound. I think this calls for a re-evaluation of just what exactly radio waves are. Radio waves are not sound. Radio waves are optical information translated or decoded into it's physical counterpart "sound waves" made possible by the advances in technology. Perhaps it works like so. A physical disturbance of space-time ("sound") can be optically observed before, or in absense of, the actual sound wave reaching the observer due to the speed of light for one, and with the idea that these physical disturbances cause a quantum optical disturbance also. We can take this optical disturbance and with the aid of technology, translate it or reproduce the sound that would have made it.

To prove that theory I would have to do some research, but logic tells me that because the medium that carries sound also carries light, a physical disturbance of the medium "sound" would affect some aspect of light also traveling cooperatively in the medium.

Again, we dont need to hear the sound to know what the sound is with observation of optical information from the source area. This "optical sound information", carried by the photon, is what we know as Radio waves.

Radio waves do not have to be converted to an audible output although. We can take radio waves as they are and record their optical information.

Radio waves are nature's alternative option to hearing. Humans do not process radio waves, we instead process vibrations of space, and we process light for vision. Imagine though if we processed radio waves for hearing. That would mean for one, we would hear at the speed of light. If that ain't odd enough, our world would be completlely saturated by noise because radio waves are all around us constantly, technology aside, nature makes radio waves. Again it would boil down to how sensitive our "hearing" is.

Both radio waves and sound waves obey an inverse square law. True of False? True. You can already guess that sound waves would in fact.

[Added later]
That just got me thinking, I wonder if NASA has to boost it's signal to it's spacecraft, never really thought about it. That must be the case though, because I think I know for a fact that EMR obeys an ISL. This also gets me thinking about the claim that if ET is out there and transmitting radio waves that A: they or us would have the technology to boost the signal that much and B: that we have the technology sensitive enough to pick it up. That's just not gonna happen, the distances are just too great. The radio signal gets weaker and weaker according to distance (ISL). SETI seems pretty pointless to me in afterthought.

Here I found all there is to know about sound, it's what you were taught in high school but forgot.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/sound/u11l1a.html

April 14 2004

I seen a program on the Science channel and this time they were talking about the origins of our moon. A theory goes that it was created by a collision of a rogue planet with the Earth. They also talked about what effect the moon has on the Earth. I was very surprised to see that the moon is almost vital to our climate. The moon regulates and keeps in check the wobble of the Earth's rotation along it's axis. It also controls to a certain degree the length of our day. Without the moon the Earth like Mars for example, would wobble on it's axis more than 50 80 or so degrees. This would in turn reak havoc on Earth's climate. Imagine what would happen if the North pole was in orientation to the sun as the equator is, the ice would melt and that would be the end of dry land on Earth. Interestingly enough, the moon is actually moving away from the Earth over time at a small clip. If an asteroid doesn't get us, the moon will. It further goes to ask the question of is the appearence of life on a planet dependent on a moon? We now have to add an important varible to the equation in the search for extraterrestial life, when we find an Earth-like planet, does it also have a moon?

There is also a book I recall on the theory
http://www.danamackenzie.com/index.htm