Re: the down side of physics
i have yet to start reading universe in a nutshell, which is the assigned reading for this week, so pardon me if i said anything that doesn't make sense. but i WILL read it tonight, and hope i'll be done by tomorrow night. then i'll have more things i can say =D
as far as i know, the universe we're living in right now is expanding, not contracting. but if hawking himself says something about the contraction of the universe, then i'm sure he has valid reasoning. after all, he IS the world's smartest physicist, and i'm just a mere undergraduate student. physicists, namely astrophysicists, have been studying dark matter and dark energy, which make up quite a huge proportion of the universe. i think it's around 90% of the universe. and these dark matter and dark energy are what cause the universe to expand. i'm sure www.wikipedia.com has a better explanation of dark matter and dark energy. just go there and type it in.
if you say "as we moving further into the microscoptic scale, there seems to be no reason for us to discover further more," i would have to disagree. have you heard of cold fusion? have you even heard of fusion? well i'm sure the latter you have. in nuclear plants, what is happening is FISSION. fission is the process by which a stable uranium-235 atom take on one or more extra neutrons and become unstable. the instability of the new isotope then causes the nucleus to split apart and produce a massive energy. do this with a huuuuuge number of U-235 atoms, and we've got the energy that powers some parts of the united states. but the bad thing about fission is, as we all know, the nuclear waste. their half-lives are long enough that a significant amount of them will affect human beings severely. so now they're trying something much safer: FUSION. fusion is the process by which deuterium (hydrogen-2) and tritium (hydrogen-3) combine to form a helium atom, a neutron, and about three times as much energy as that being produced in fission process. more energy, better for everyone. plus, fusion don't leave nuclear waste. the problem with fusion is that it requires a HUGE amount of energy to begin with. (this has to do with the repulsive coulomb force of the tritium and deuterium that i don't think anyone would be particularly interested in) that's why now they try to figure out COLD FUSION. cold fusion is basically fusion, but at lower energy. the most ideal would be such fusion at room temperature. but of course this is still theoretical, and physicists are still trying to figure out HOW to get the fusion started at such a low energy. if this succeeds, we could produce enough energy to power the whole united states, and maybe the world, that doesn't cost so much, and doesn't leave nuclear waste.
speaking of saving money on your electric bill. =)
if you want a better explanation on cold fusion, wikipedia has a good explanation for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
and here are some articles on cold fusion that i would suggest those who are interested to read, because obviously they give a much better explanation and argument than mine.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-4/p27.html
on account of why we physicist are interested in discovering what happens during, before, and after the big bang, given that the big bang was what actually happened, here's my say on it:
firstly, some physicists, like myself, do these funky and weird uninteresting-to-most-people things for the knowledge. it may sound naive, but knowledge itself for me is quite a satisfaction. when you do research on something, and one night you DISCOVER something, until you run around in your bathrobe screaming eureka and telling everyone in the building what you discover, YOU are the ONLY ONE in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD who knows. THE ONLY ONE. no one else knows until you tell them. is that not satisfying?
secondly, we physicist answer the HOW's of things. physicists don't make this world a better place, that's what humanitarians do. physicists don't make devices to help improve your life, that's what engineers do. physicists don't make your medicine, that's what chemists do. some physicists invent things, but inventing is NOT what a physicist mainly do. physicists explain how flow rate leads to pressure difference, then engineers take this and build airplanes. the reason why airplane wings are more curvy on one side is because the curvy side has more survace area than the flat side. this way, since air flows from the front to the back, the flow on the curvy side has to have a greater velocity (it covers bigger area at the same period of time). greater velocity leads to less pressure. so the flat side has more pressure. this is what physicists discover. then engineers take this and say "okay, then the flat side of the wings will be at the bottom and the curvy side will be at the top. that way when going at a high speed, the airplane will be pushed UP and will fly away." to better this, engineers then design the rudder system. if you've ever been on the passenger side of the car going above 55 on the freeway, roll the window down and stick your palm out. palm, not arm. flat palm, thumb facing the front of the car, pinky facing the back. if you tilt your palm down, meaning the thumb is now at a lower position than the pinky, your palm will be pushed down by the air flowing through your palm. tilt your palm up, and your palm will be pushed up. this is analogous to how rudder in airplanes work.
what makes life better is other people. what we physicists do is to HELP these other people make life better. how they want to use what physicists discover, is entirely up to them. politicians sometimes use scientific discoveries for propaganda. defense department is interested in more killing power. etc. this is why, in regards to earlier post on how einstein shouldn't be blamed for the manhattan project that spat out the atomic bomb, i would have to agree. einstein's discovery about mass as energy was purely scientific discovery. i highly doubt that he was even a part of the manhattan project. if anyone were to be blamed, it would be the person who gives the order to drop the bomb (i don't quite remember who). or oppenheimer, who was the head of the project. but it's all in the past. there's no point in blaming.
has anyone read "angels and demons" by dan brown? i would recommend that book. it's a fiction, but towards the end, there's a great speech about how science, which is based on facts, and religion, which is based of faith, are not supposed to prove each other wrong, but are supposed to go together, hand-in-hand, because science NEEDS religion, and religion NEEDS science. i couldn't find my book right now since my room's a mess, but after i find it i'll send out the quote.
also, there was a question: "if we know one day the entire universe is going to end, what's the point of fighting for survival now?"
what's the point of fighting for survival now? it is LIFE. OUR LIFE, the way it is right now. what else could we cherish and be thankful more than our lives? death is a state of nothingness; as epicurus put it, "since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist." there is NOTHING to expect in death, but in life, there are numerous things to expect. life in itself is great, because it holds endless possibilities. your life can turn for the better, or the worse; while in death, it's just nothingness. an unchanging state. of course death is inevitable, but as of now, you live. you exist. your existence has a meaning. your existence is acknowledged by this world, by the people around you. every second that passes holds a possibility of something happening, and this is what makes life exciting. why is it not worth fighting for? =)
sorry for another long post. i hope i don't bore anyone. =/
as far as i know, the universe we're living in right now is expanding, not contracting. but if hawking himself says something about the contraction of the universe, then i'm sure he has valid reasoning. after all, he IS the world's smartest physicist, and i'm just a mere undergraduate student. physicists, namely astrophysicists, have been studying dark matter and dark energy, which make up quite a huge proportion of the universe. i think it's around 90% of the universe. and these dark matter and dark energy are what cause the universe to expand. i'm sure www.wikipedia.com has a better explanation of dark matter and dark energy. just go there and type it in.
if you say "as we moving further into the microscoptic scale, there seems to be no reason for us to discover further more," i would have to disagree. have you heard of cold fusion? have you even heard of fusion? well i'm sure the latter you have. in nuclear plants, what is happening is FISSION. fission is the process by which a stable uranium-235 atom take on one or more extra neutrons and become unstable. the instability of the new isotope then causes the nucleus to split apart and produce a massive energy. do this with a huuuuuge number of U-235 atoms, and we've got the energy that powers some parts of the united states. but the bad thing about fission is, as we all know, the nuclear waste. their half-lives are long enough that a significant amount of them will affect human beings severely. so now they're trying something much safer: FUSION. fusion is the process by which deuterium (hydrogen-2) and tritium (hydrogen-3) combine to form a helium atom, a neutron, and about three times as much energy as that being produced in fission process. more energy, better for everyone. plus, fusion don't leave nuclear waste. the problem with fusion is that it requires a HUGE amount of energy to begin with. (this has to do with the repulsive coulomb force of the tritium and deuterium that i don't think anyone would be particularly interested in) that's why now they try to figure out COLD FUSION. cold fusion is basically fusion, but at lower energy. the most ideal would be such fusion at room temperature. but of course this is still theoretical, and physicists are still trying to figure out HOW to get the fusion started at such a low energy. if this succeeds, we could produce enough energy to power the whole united states, and maybe the world, that doesn't cost so much, and doesn't leave nuclear waste.
speaking of saving money on your electric bill. =)
if you want a better explanation on cold fusion, wikipedia has a good explanation for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
and here are some articles on cold fusion that i would suggest those who are interested to read, because obviously they give a much better explanation and argument than mine.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-4/p27.html
on account of why we physicist are interested in discovering what happens during, before, and after the big bang, given that the big bang was what actually happened, here's my say on it:
firstly, some physicists, like myself, do these funky and weird uninteresting-to-most-people things for the knowledge. it may sound naive, but knowledge itself for me is quite a satisfaction. when you do research on something, and one night you DISCOVER something, until you run around in your bathrobe screaming eureka and telling everyone in the building what you discover, YOU are the ONLY ONE in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD who knows. THE ONLY ONE. no one else knows until you tell them. is that not satisfying?
secondly, we physicist answer the HOW's of things. physicists don't make this world a better place, that's what humanitarians do. physicists don't make devices to help improve your life, that's what engineers do. physicists don't make your medicine, that's what chemists do. some physicists invent things, but inventing is NOT what a physicist mainly do. physicists explain how flow rate leads to pressure difference, then engineers take this and build airplanes. the reason why airplane wings are more curvy on one side is because the curvy side has more survace area than the flat side. this way, since air flows from the front to the back, the flow on the curvy side has to have a greater velocity (it covers bigger area at the same period of time). greater velocity leads to less pressure. so the flat side has more pressure. this is what physicists discover. then engineers take this and say "okay, then the flat side of the wings will be at the bottom and the curvy side will be at the top. that way when going at a high speed, the airplane will be pushed UP and will fly away." to better this, engineers then design the rudder system. if you've ever been on the passenger side of the car going above 55 on the freeway, roll the window down and stick your palm out. palm, not arm. flat palm, thumb facing the front of the car, pinky facing the back. if you tilt your palm down, meaning the thumb is now at a lower position than the pinky, your palm will be pushed down by the air flowing through your palm. tilt your palm up, and your palm will be pushed up. this is analogous to how rudder in airplanes work.
what makes life better is other people. what we physicists do is to HELP these other people make life better. how they want to use what physicists discover, is entirely up to them. politicians sometimes use scientific discoveries for propaganda. defense department is interested in more killing power. etc. this is why, in regards to earlier post on how einstein shouldn't be blamed for the manhattan project that spat out the atomic bomb, i would have to agree. einstein's discovery about mass as energy was purely scientific discovery. i highly doubt that he was even a part of the manhattan project. if anyone were to be blamed, it would be the person who gives the order to drop the bomb (i don't quite remember who). or oppenheimer, who was the head of the project. but it's all in the past. there's no point in blaming.
has anyone read "angels and demons" by dan brown? i would recommend that book. it's a fiction, but towards the end, there's a great speech about how science, which is based on facts, and religion, which is based of faith, are not supposed to prove each other wrong, but are supposed to go together, hand-in-hand, because science NEEDS religion, and religion NEEDS science. i couldn't find my book right now since my room's a mess, but after i find it i'll send out the quote.
also, there was a question: "if we know one day the entire universe is going to end, what's the point of fighting for survival now?"
what's the point of fighting for survival now? it is LIFE. OUR LIFE, the way it is right now. what else could we cherish and be thankful more than our lives? death is a state of nothingness; as epicurus put it, "since so long as we exist, death is not with us; but when death comes, then we do not exist." there is NOTHING to expect in death, but in life, there are numerous things to expect. life in itself is great, because it holds endless possibilities. your life can turn for the better, or the worse; while in death, it's just nothingness. an unchanging state. of course death is inevitable, but as of now, you live. you exist. your existence has a meaning. your existence is acknowledged by this world, by the people around you. every second that passes holds a possibility of something happening, and this is what makes life exciting. why is it not worth fighting for? =)
sorry for another long post. i hope i don't bore anyone. =/
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home