Faraday & Generators

After just taking an intense test in my Electromagnetic Theory class, I feel compelled to share some of the awesome things I’ve learned in this class. Electromagnetic Theory is so awesome that David Griffiths, the man who wrote our textbook on Electrodynamics, felt compelled to write an advertisement inside the book (hence, you read it AFTER you buy the book) as to why it’s worth studying. As he puts it, “It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that we live in an electromagnetic world—for virtually every force we experience in everyday life, with the exception of gravity, is electromagnetic in origin.” But it’s not just the forces we experience that makes E&M so relevant to our everyday life—E&M Theory has given rise to the majority of inventions that shape how we as humans live in the modern era.

If it wasn’t for E&M, we wouldn’t have light bulbs, television sets, cell phones, or Verizon FiOS. The entire field of optics is now attached to E&M, precisely because of how relevant a role the latter plays on the former (so you can thank E&M for your sexy contact lenses). Not only is Electromagnetic Theory rich in its depth and subtlety, but it also happens to be true that electromagnetic forces are the only ones to be completely understood. Yeah.

Have I convinced you of how awesome this stuff is yet? Well, let me take you back to the old days, when electricity and magnetism were considered separate phenomena. Most people associate electricity with unhappy things—getting zapped when you grab a doorknob, or getting struck by lightning—while people associate magnetism with fun activities, like sticking dirty jokes on your refrigerator (yeah, yeah, the refrigerator wasn’t invented yet…don’t get all high-and-mighty with me, punk). I jest…still, there didn’t seem to be a connection between the two, other than the fact that both had something to do with charges, moving or stationary. But Michael Faraday changed everything, when he discovered something called electromagnetic induction.

Yeah, I know…it’s a big word (two big words, actually). But here’s the idea: Let’s say you have a closed loop of wire in the presence of a magnetic field, supplied by, say, a magnet. If you wave this magnet back and forth (i.e. change the strength of the magnetic field), you will produce electric current in the wire! Let that sink in. This means that a changing magnetic field produces an electric field! Here’s a picture to help illustrate this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the basic idea of induction, also known as Faraday’s Law. At first glance, this may not seem that important, but it blew my mind. This discovery later led to even more important ideas that solidified electromagnetism as one theory. But Faraday’s law has much more importance than you may think, because it is the reason we can live in the society we do. How so?

Faraday’s Law is what we use to power our generators! Almost everything we know is run by electricity. Our cities require huge amounts of electrical energy…have you ever wondered where it comes from? Con Edison runs huge electric generators, which use this principle to create electricity. They take giant magnets and spin them around, creating huge amounts of electric power, which is later shipped to your home via power lines!

Of course, it’s all much more complicated than I present it here, but this is the basic idea. Without Faraday’s Law and these generators, say goodbye to the life you enjoy living. Hopefully you can now appreciate some of the beauty of Electromagnetism. So make sure the next time you accidentally stick your finger into a socket, you remember the painful electrocution you receive is all thanks to the wonders of physics!

Posted in Physics | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Kepler 10-b

Hi my fellow science junkies. I’m so sorry for such a long absence…this school semester has been crazy. Recently, I found myself at the ASNY Conference at the University of Rochester, where I witnessed a fascinating talk from Natalie Batalha, Kepler scientist and lead author of the paper discussing the discovery of the exoplanet Kepler 10-b. It was here that she discussed some of the details of this awesome exoplanet, which is the first confirmed rocky planet orbiting a star (I think we already confirmed one around a neutron star, but I could be wrong). Either way, it’s the Kepler satellite’s first confirmed rocky exoplanet.

First, a little background. An exoplanet is basically just a planet found outside of our own solar system (this means it orbits a different star). One of the biggest fields in astronomy today is the search for exoplanets, because our methods have gotten better and better, especially now with the invention of the Kepler Satellite. The Kepler mission is a revolutionary one, with one of its main goals being to figure out the frequency of planets like Earth in the “habitable zones” of stars. For more information on Kepler’s scientific goals and specifics, just go to the NASA site: http://kepler.nasa.gov/

With Kepler, we’ve really upped the numbers of confirmed exoplanets, as well as planet candidates. Remember from the last entry I wrote that when we say “candidates”, we mean it hasn’t been officially confirmed yet. This is a HUGE detail in science that must always be remembered; the great thing about this entry is that we’re looking at a confirmed rocky planet! So we know it is definitely real, and what we think it is. There’s still a LOT to learn and confirm about this exoplanet, but so far, we’ve got quite a few intriguing details! Kepler and NASA have an awesome site to illustrate the properties and size of Kepler 10-b’s orbit and host star:  http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/kepler10b/

I’ll give you the highlights, for some good comparisons. First off, Kepler 10-b is roughly 3-5 times the mass of Earth, and has a radius of around 1.4 the size of Earth’s radius. So in terms of dimensions, we’re very similar! In fact, it also orbits a star very much like our Sun, about 560 light years away from us. But don’t get too excited about the possibility of life existing—the exoplanet is really close to its star. It’s also tidally locked, which means that one side of the exoplanet always faces the star, and the other side always faces away. This leads to a peculiar feature of the exoplanet—one side of it is so hot that it’s expected to be roughly 2500 degrees fahrenheit, which would cause it to glow! The surface is molten, so you can’t expect to find life on it. But the exoplanet is still really cool! Here’s a picture of what artists think Kepler 10-b may look like:

Photo courtesy of NASA

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, it’s only an artist’s rendition…we don’t really know what it looks like. But the fact that this exoplanet can be found in the first place is great news. Other exoplanets, that may look like Earth, can therefore be found. Kepler 10-b is the first milestone step in what may prove to be the most exciting human journey since the Apollo missions!

That’s all for now. Don’t forget to check up on Kepler as the months pass to see what new discoveries they have to show. And hopefully I’ll be able to find some more to time to write. Until next time!

Posted in Astronomy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Farthest Galaxy (Candidate)

Hi science junkies! Sorry for not having too many updates. This might be a short one depending on time. Let’s get to it:

The other day, I thought to myself, “Self, I wonder how far out the farthest galaxy ever discovered is.” It turns out this galaxy candidate is pretty “far out” in both literal and figurative senses. Before we continue, I want to make a very important distinction. You notice I (will) refer to this object as a “galaxy candidate.” The reason for this is that it’s not technically proven to be a galaxy just yet. There is still more analysis to be done. In science, this is very often how it works; we find objects that we believe to be a specific type of object, and until we can prove it to be one, it stays a “candidate.” This has become very important recently, with constant discoveries of exoplanets…many of the reported findings are of candidates, not verified objects. So when you hear or read news of discoveries, always be sure to pay careful attention to this important detail!

This galaxy candidate has a very fitting, lovely name: UDFj-39546284. It just oozes awesomeness. Preliminary data shows this galaxy candidate is 13.2 billion years away (for those of you who know something about astronomy, that’s a redshift of 10.3). The fact that this object is so far away does not mean it is really old…it actually means it’s really young! Remember that the light we see coming from this galaxy candidate was emitted 13.2 billion years ago…we’re seeing it as it was a mere 500 million years after the big bang!

500 million years sounds like a long time, but I’ll give you some perspective: if the Universe was a 100 year old man, we’re seeing this galaxy as it was when the Universe was 4 years old! So while the galaxy candidate is so far away, it’s actually really young…or rather, we’re seeing it as it was when it was in its infancy. This is why to study galaxies, we have to look at different distances…this allows us to see galaxies at different stages in their lifetimes. Below is a picture of this galaxy candidate, in the infrared:

UDFj-39546284

Photo credit to: NASA, ESA, Garth Illingworth (University of California, Santa Cruz) and Rychard Bouwens (University of California, Santa Cruz and Leiden University) and the HUDF09 Team.

Hopefully, with the launch of JWST (It’ll get launched eventually, we promise!), we’ll see even farther than Hubble, to a redshift of 20 or greater! (that’s 13.5 billion years back in time!) Fascinating, the things that are still to be discovered!

Posted in Astronomy | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Nomenclature Nightmare: TNOs

Hi there, loyal readers! As school here in CUNY resumes itself, I find myself preparing for my classes, and going over some of my old notes (I do this because I like to use the same book for multiple classes, so I end up reading over some things). While doing this, I remembered something that has always bothered me; I hate bad scientific nomenclature. In general, people who aren’t scientists often find science to be very confusing and intimidating…and to be honest, I often get intimidated just by looking at the names. Have you ever attended a biology talk? I can never understand what they’re talking about unless they tell me in non-latin terms.

Notice that "Intimidation" is 5 syllables long.

I’m not just talking about Biology…that just wouldn’t be fair. It’s all over the place. Even in my own field of Astronomy, confusion abounds. One of the worst things is our naming system for various types of rocky bodies farther out than Neptune. I’m going to name a few of them…and yes, there will be a quiz at the end. So pay attention. Ok…no quiz…but seriously, pay attention.

As most people are aware, Pluto is no longer a planet (and for good reason: see older post for explanation), but objects like it are the victims of an overabundance of nomenclature. To illustrate what I mean, I’m going to tell you every category Pluto fits into. Are you ready?

These aren’t even all the categories. But let’s now examine these particular categories in more detail, because most likely, you don’t know what most of them are, and would easily confuse them if someone referenced them in conversation (because clearly the latest plutino discovery makes for fantastic discussion on your third date). I’m not going to talk about dwarf planets — for explanation see older post “Pluto is Not a Planet”.

To change things up, I’m going to work up the list. A “Kuiper Belt Object” is self-explanatory…it is an astronomical body (object) that resides in the Kuiper Belt, which, similar to the asteroid belt, is a doughnut shaped region past Neptune with many “small” objects. There is a similar region slightly farther out which scientists now like to call the “Scattered Disk”…this region contains Eris, the hated dwarf planet bigger than Pluto. Now of course, all Kuiper Belt objects and Scattered Disk objects are part of a grander category called “Trans-Neptunian Objects” (TNOs), which are objects orbiting the Sun that are farther out than Neptune.

Pluto happens to be a Resonant TNO, which means that it is in orbital resonance with Neptune. In easier terms, Pluto’s orbit is affected by Neptune in such a way that for every 3 orbits Neptune makes, Pluto makes 2. Hence, they are in 2:3 orbital resonance with each other. As you may imagine, there are other objects that share a 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune…these objects are the ones known as “plutinos”. My favorite plutino is the dwarf planet named Orcus, which has almost the exact opposite orbit of Pluto, and so it is also known as the Anti-Pluto. TNOs can have other orbital resonances as well (e.g. 1:2 resonant bodies called “twotinos”, 1:1 resonant bodies called “Neptune Trojans”).

Now for the last one on the list…plutoids. To me, the category of “Plutoid” is completely unnecessary, and downright confusing. According to the International Astronomical Union (IAU), “Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the Sun at a semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighborhood around their orbit. Satellites of plutoids are not plutoids themselves.” So basically, this means that Plutoids are the exact same as Dwarf Planets, the only difference is that they are farther than Neptune. That’s it. So take a list of all the dwarf planets, and cut out all those closer than Neptune. Isn’t that the most stupid idea we’ve had in a while? In addition to being of little use, it’s so similar to “Plutino” and “Pluto” that it is easily confused.

I’m sure there are plenty of arguments as to why it might be useful to make such overlapping categories as to find similar properties of objects. But a couple of them, like Plutoids, seem redundant, and if you are going to have so many similar categories, then at least use names that won’t be so easily confused with each other! Using Pluto as a name for two separate, similar categories just seems like poor nomenclature choice. I like to call this problem the “Nomenclature Nightmare.” And that’s not ambiguous.

There are many other nomenclature nightmares, but for the sake of time, I’ll save other examples for a different entry. If you guys have examples of the Nomenclature Nightmare, comment and tell us about it! It’s a big problem, and we need to make sure to make people aware of the issue, and at the very least, educate each other as to how to survive the system (changing the system isn’t likely once it’s established, we just have to deal with it). If you have trouble with TNOs, just remember this entry! And so, I will see you next time for more science!

Posted in Astronomy | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments