Archive for the The Universe and Stuff Category

Why Does Hot Water Freeze Faster Than Cold?

Posted in Biographical, Cute Problems, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on December 15, 2015 by telescoper

Many years ago I had to take a day off School to travel down to Cambridge in order to be interviewed for a place on the Natural Sciences Tripos at Magdalene College. One of the questions I was asked was the following:

If you put a bucket of hot water and a bucket of cold water outside on a freezing cold day, which would freeze first?

I think I gave the right answer, which is that it’s not obvious..

My main argument was that evaporation would increase the rate of cooling of the hot water and also mean that when it did get down to freezing point there would be less of it to freeze. I attempted to work something out based on the heat capacity of liquid water versus the latent heat of freezing, but didn’t get very far with that as I couldn’t remember any numbers. I do remember saying that this would also depend on the shape of the bucket, especially on the surface area exposed: water in a flat dish would experience more evaporation than a narrow cylinder.

I only realised later that it wasn’t really the purpose of such questions to arrive at a definite answer, more to give the interviewer an idea of whether the interviewee is capable of thinking on his/her feet. I guess I must have waffled enough to give the misleading impression that I could, and was offered a place.

The reason I am rambling on about this now is that I stumbled across a blog post yesterday about something called the Mpemba Effect from which I quote:

The Mpemba effect is the observation that warm water freezes more quickly than cold water. The effect has been measured on many occasions with many explanations put forward. One idea is that warm containers make better thermal contact with a refrigerator and so conduct heat more efficiently. Hence the faster freezing. Another is that warm water evaporates rapidly and since this is an endothermic process, it cools the water making it freeze more quickly.

None of these explanations are entirely convincing, which is why the true explanation is still up for grabs

It appears that, depending on the circumstances, hot water does indeed freeze faster than cold water but that the reason why is apparently still not obvious.

However, there is a (fairly) recent paper on the arXiv that claims to solve this problem. The abstract reads:

We demonstrate that the Mpemba paradox arises intrinsically from the release rate of energy initially stored in the covalent H-O part of the O:H-O bond in water albeit experimental conditions. Generally, heating raises the energy of a substance by lengthening and softening all bonds involved. However, the O:H nonbond in water follows actively the general rule of thermal expansion and drives the H-O covalent bond to relax oppositely in length and energy because of the inter-electron-electron pair coupling [J Phys Chem Lett 4, 2565 (2013); ibid 4, 3238 (2013)]. Heating stores energy into the H-O bond by shortening and stiffening it. Cooling the water as the source in a refrigerator as a drain, the H-O bond releases its energy at a rate that depends exponentially on the initially storage of energy, and therefore, Mpemba effect happens. This effect is formulated in terms of the relaxation time tau to represent all possible processes of energy loss. Consistency between predictions and measurements revealed that the tau drops exponentially intrinsically with the initial temperature of the water being cooled.

Although I did study chemistry as part of my Natural Sciences degree, I dropped it after the first year and have subsequently forgotten almost everything I learned. I’m therefore not really qualified to judge whether the explanation presented in this paper is reasonable. I would be convinced if the theory could predict other observable outcomes but at the moment it doesn’t seem to.

Any chemists care to comment?

17 Equations that Changed the World

Posted in History, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , on December 14, 2015 by telescoper

Yesterday I posted about a map that “changed the world”. Clearly the world changed a lot and for many different reasons because when I got home I noticed the following picture on Facebook, depicting 17 equations that also “changed the world”:

 

17 Equations

This is from a book by mathematician Ian Stewart.

Of course it’s actually 20 equations, because there are four Maxwell Equations. It is an interesting selection. Are there any surprising omissions?

 

 

William Smith and the First National Geological Map

Posted in History, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on December 13, 2015 by telescoper

Friday was the last day of teaching term here at the University of Sussex. Aided by the general winding down of things I managed the unusual feat of geting up to London in time to catch some of the monthly discussion meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society, which was on A Critical Assessment of Cluster Cosmology. Usually I only just manage to get there in time for some of the Ordinary Meeting which follows the specialist meetings at 4pm. And sometimes I only get there in time for the drinks reception at Burlington House followed by the RAS Club dinner at the Athenaeum!

I may write something about Cluster Cosmology if I get time before Christmas, but I thought I’d post an item now inspired by one of the talks in the Ordinary Meeting by Tom Sharpe of Lyme Regis Museum and Cardiff University. This talk was timed to mark the 200th anniversary of the publication of the first ever geological map of England and Wales in 1815. To make it even more topical, the talk was given in the lecture theatre of the Geological Society of London where an original print of the Map is on permanent display:

William Smith Map

The person responsible for this map, which was the first to show nationwide geological strata, was a chap called William Smith who surveyed England and Wales on foot and on horseback, travelling over 10,000 miles to make it. It was a remarkable achievement which, among many other things, led the way to great changes in the understanding of geological time. Unfortunately his work didn’t have much impact when it was first published. Smith, who was evidently not a very astute businessman, eventually went bankrupt and spent some time in a debtor’s prison.

The map itself is extremely beautiful as well as very clever in the way it uses colours and shading to represent three-dimensional information on a two dimensional surface.

Anyway, there is a book  entitled  The Map that Changed the World  written by Simon Winchester which tells the story of William Smith and his map. I haven’t read it but I’m told it’s excellent. I’ll probably buy a copy with the book tokens I inevitably get for Christmas!

 

 

 

 

The Optic Glass

Posted in Cute Problems, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , on December 10, 2015 by telescoper

I thought you might be interested in this video demonstrating an interesting possible effect of refraction:

It’s not a trick, but it did take me quite a long time to reproduce the result. Can you figure out what’s going on?

 

 

Variations on the Theme of Northern Lights

Posted in Art, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on December 9, 2015 by telescoper

This morning I woke up as usual to BBC Radio 3. Unusually however this morning’s breakfast programme was broadcast live from the picturesque town of Tromsø in Norway, which is well inside the Actic Circle so is dark all day at this time of year. The broadcast from Norway part of a three-week extravaganza called Northern Lights, which focusses on the music and culture North of 60° latitude.

Anyway, this prompted me to do a brief post about a couple of related matters connected by the theme of Northern Lights.

The first is to draw your attention to the fact that, to coincide with this Nobel Prize Week in Stockholm, the artist Olafur Eliasson has set up a temporary public artwork in Stockholm called Your Star, which involves putting an artificial star into the sky over Stockholm. I gather it has been quite difficult to get the star to behave in the windy conditions, but in any case you can use the website to view six short videos and even create your own star..

The second is this wonderful video of the  Aurora Borealis? If you haven’t seen this before then take a look. It’s not a fake. This is what it’s really like.

I stood under a show like this once, in Tromsø in fact, and I can tell you ever the word “awesome” applied to anything, this is it. The curious thing is that I had the definite feeling that there was a booming and whooshing sound to go with the light show. I wasn’t the only one there who thought they could hear it as well as see it. And I wasn’t drunk either. Well, not very.

I’m reliably informed however that there is no physical mechanism that could produce sound waves of sufficient power to reach ground level from the altitude at which the light is generated. It must have been psychological, as if the brain wants to add a backing track when it sees something as spectacular as this. Any views on this phenomenon would be welcome via the comments box..

 

UPDATE: here’s an interesting take on the Auroral Sounds issue.

Bayes’ Theorem or Price’s Theorem?

Posted in History, The Universe and Stuff with tags , on December 4, 2015 by telescoper

Richard_Price_West

I’m indebted to a fellow blogger for drawing my attention to the person shown in the above picture, Dr Richard Price who has been described as “the most original thinker ever born in Wales”, and who has a Society named after him.

Price was a moral philosopher, nonconformist preacher and also a mathematician of some note. Of particular interest to this blog is the role he played in the development of what is now known as Bayes’ Theorem, after the Reverend Thomas Bayes.

However, the paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society that contains the first published form of this theorem was not published until 1763, over a year after Bayes’ death and, as you can see if you follow the link, is attributed jointly to “Mr Bayes and Mr Price”.  It appears that there was an original manuscript written by Bayes around about 1755  which was communicated to Price when Bayes died in 1761 and then presented for publication over a year later; Price had been asked to act as “literary executor” of Bayes’ estate.

Unfortunately the original manuscript has never been found and it is therefore impossible to say for sure how much Price contributed to the final version. However, a relatively recent and very interesting article  raises this question, and argues (reasonably convincingly to my mind) that Bayes’ part stops at page 14 of 32 pages. It is therefore quite possible that Price wrote over half the paper himself although most historical discussions of this matter simple state that Price “edited” Bayes’ work.

It has to be said that the paper is not exactly a model of clarity and pertains only to a particular case of the full theorem. The form in general use today was first published by Laplace in 1812, so it should really be called Laplace’s Theorem, but Laplace did give generous credit to the work of Bayes which is no doubt why the name stuck.

I don’t suppose we will know for sure exactly how much Price contributed to the development of Bayes’ theorem, but this may be yet another example of the law that any result in science or mathematics that has a person’s name attached to it has the wrong name attached to it!

Finally, I will mention that the Richard Price Society has started a petition to the Welsh government. I’m taking the liberty of copying the purpose of this petition here:

We call on the Welsh government to acknowledge the important contribution of Dr Richard Price not only to the eighteenth century Enlightenment, but also to the making of the modern world that we live in today, and develop his birthplace and childhood home into a visitor information centre where people of all nationalities and ages can discover how his significant contributions to theology, mathematics and philosophy have shaped the modern world.

Tynton Farm in Llangeinor, the birthplace and childhood home of Dr Richard Price is for sale. Once derelict, the farm has been sensitively restored and almost all of the original features have been preserved. The Richard Price Society is aware that the house attracts visitors from all corners of the globe and this is attested by the previous owner’s Visitors Book that was signed by visitors to the farm. The position of the farm and its provenance would make it an ideal learning centre where people can find out just what an important person he was and remains. This is an opportunity to buy the property at market value and help celebrate the achievements of Wales’ intellectual giant and apostle of liberty.

 

I have signed it, and hope you will consider doing likewise!

 

 

 

Lisa Pathfinder – better late than never!

Posted in Science Politics, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , on December 3, 2015 by telescoper

Determined to post about something positive after yesterday’s act of collective idiocy by Parliament I find myself given a golden opportunity by today’s successful launch of the Lisa Pathfinder experiment by the European Space Agency.

As space missions go, LISA Pathfinder seems quite a modest one: it is basically a pair of identical 46 mm gold–platinum cubes separated by 38 cm. The idea is to put these test masses in free fall and measure their relative positions as accurately as possible.

After a false start yesterday, LISA Pathfinder was successfully launched in the early hours of this morning and is now en route to the First Lagrangian Point of the Earth-Sun system, about 1.5 million miles from Earth, at the location marked L1 in the diagram:

Lagrange_saddle

The contours show the “effective potential” of the Earth-Sun system, which takes into account the effect of rotation as well as gravity. The five Lagrangian points are the places at which tis effective potential is locally flat, i.e. where its spatial gradient vanishes. Any physics student will know that when the gradient of the potential is zero there is no force on a test particle. What this means is that an object placed exactly at any of the 5 Lagrangian points stays in the same position relative to the Earth and Sun as the system rotates. Put a spacecraft at one of these points, therefore, and it stays put when viewed in a frame rotating around the Sun  at the same speed as the Earth.

It’s not quite as simple as this because, as you will observe the Lagrangian points are not stable: L1, L2 and L3 are saddle-points; a  stable point would be a local minimum. However, around the first three there are stable orbits so in effect a test mass displaced from L1, say, oscillates around it without doing anything too drastic. L4 and L5 can be stable or unstable, in a general system but are stable for the case of the Solar System, hence the tendency of asteroids (the Trojans) to accumulate at these locations.

You may remember that WMAP, Planck and Herschel were all parked in orbits around L2. A spacecraft positioned exactly at L2 is permanently screened from the Sun by the Earth. That might be very useful if you want to do long-wavelength observations that require very cool detectors, but not if you want to use the Sun as a source of power. In any case, as I explained above, spacecraft are not generally located exactly at L2 but in orbit around it. Planck in fact had solar cells on the base of the satellite that provided power but also formed a shield as they always faced the Sun as the satellite rotated and moved in its orbit to map the sky. The choice of L1 for LISA Pathfinder was made on the basis of spacecraft design considerations as it will operate in a very different manner from Planck.

The reason for doing eLISA is to demonstrate the technological feasibility of a much more ambitious planned gravitational wave detector in space originally called LISA, but now called eLISA. The displacement of test masses caused by gravitational waves is tiny so in order for eLisa it is necessary (a) to screen out every effect other than gravity, e.g. electromagnetic interactions due to residual charges, to great precision and (b) to measure relative positions to great accuracy. That’s why it was decided to fly a cheaper technology demonstrator mission, to prove the idea is feasible.

LISA Pathfinder won’t make any science discoveries but hopefully it will pave the way towards eLISA.

It has to be said that LISA Pathfinder has had a fairly troubled history. I just had a quick look at some papers I have dating back to the time when I was Chair of PPARC Astronomy Advisory. Among them I found the categorical statement that

LISA Pathfinder will be launched in 2009.

Hmm. Not quite. It’s obviously running quite a long way behind schedule and no doubt considerably over its initial budget but it’s good to see it under way at last. There will be a lot of sighs of relief that LISA Pathfinder has finally made it into space! Now let’s see if it can do what it is supposed to do!

 

 

 

Einstein’s Legacy

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , on November 29, 2015 by telescoper

Yesterday I braved the inclement weather and the perils of weekend travel on Southern Trains to visit Queen Mary College, in the East End of London, for the following event:

GR100

I used to work at  Queen Mary, but haven’t been back for a while. The college and environs have been smartened up quite a lot since I used to be there, as seems to be the case for the East End generally. I doubt if I could afford to live there now!

Owing to a little local difficulty which I won’t go into, I was running a bit late so I missed the morning session. I did, however, arrive in time to see my former colleague Bangalore Sathyaprakash from Cardiff talking about gravitational waves, Jim Hough from Glasgow talking about experimental gravity – including gravitational waves but also talking about the puzzling state of affairs over “Big G” – and Pedro Ferreira from Oxford whose talk on “Cosmology for the 21st Century” gave an enjoyable historical perspective on recent developments.

The talks were held in the Great Hall in the People’s Palace on Mile End Road, a large venue that was pretty full all afternoon. I’m not sure whether it was the District/Hammersmith & City Line or the Central Line (or both) that provided the atmospheric sound effects, especially when Jim Hough described the problems of dealing with seismic noise in gravitational experiments and a train rumbled underneath right on cue.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bryn’s comment (below) I looked at a map: the Central Line goes well to the North whereas the District and Hammersmith & City Line go directly under the main buildings adjacent to Mile End Road.

Under-QM

Anyway, the venue was even fuller for the evening session, kicked off by my former PhD supervisor, John Barrow:

Einstein's Legacy

This session was aimed at a more popular audience and was attended by more than a few A-level students. John’s talk was very nice, taking us through all the various cosmological models that have been developed based on Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.

Finally, topping the bill, was Sir Roger Penrose whose talk was engagingly lo-tech in terms of visual aids but aimed at quite a high level. His use of hand-drawn transparencies was very old-school, but a useful side-effect was that he conveyed very effectively how entropy always increases with time.

Penrose covered some really interesting material related to black holes and cosmology, especially to do with gravitational entropy, but my heart sank when he tried at the end to resurrect his discredited “Circles in the Sky” idea. I’m not sure how much the A-level students took from his talk, but I found it very entertaining.

The conference carries on today, but I couldn’t attend the Sunday session owing to pressure of work. Which I should be doing now!

P.S. I’ll say it before anyone else does: yes, all the speakers I heard were male, as indeed were the two I missed in the morning. I gather there was one cancellation  of a female speaker (Alessandra Buonanno), for whom Sathya stood in.  But still.

 

Why is General Relativity so difficult?

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , on November 26, 2015 by telescoper

Just a brief post following yesterday’s centenary of General Relativity, after which somebody asked me what is so difficult about the theory. I had two answers to that, one mathematical and one conceptual.

einstein-equation1

The Field Equations of General Relativity are written above. In the notation used they don’t look all that scary, but they are more complicated than they look. For a start it looks like there is only one equation, but the subscripts μ and ν can each take four values (usually 0, 1, 2 or 3), each value standing for one of the dimensions of four-dimensional space time. It therefore looks likes there are actually 16 equations. However, the equations are the same if you swap μ  and ν around. This means that there are “only” ten independent equations. The terms on the left hand side are the components of the Einstein Tensor which expresses the effect of gravity through the curvature of space time and the right hand side describes the energy and momentum of “stuff”, prefaced by some familiar constants.

The Einstein Tensor is made up of lots of partial derivatives of another tensor called the metric tensor (which describes the geometry of space time), which relates, through the Field Equations, to how matter and energy are distributed and how these components move and interact. The ten equations that need to be solved simultaneously are second-order non-linear partial different equations. This is to be compared with the case of Newtonian gravity in which only ordinary different equations are involved.

Problems in Newtonian mechanics can be difficult enough to solve but the much greater mathematical complexity in General Relativity means that problems in GR can only be solved in cases of very special symmetry, in which the number of independent equations can be reduced dramatically.

So that’s why it’s difficult mathematically. As for the conceptual problem it’s that most people (I think) consider “space” to be “what’s in between the matter” which seems like it must be “nothing”. But how can “nothing” possess an attribute like curvature? This leads you to conclude that space is much more than nothing. But it’s not a form of matter. So what is it? This chain of thought often leads people to think of space as being like the Ether, but that’s not right either. Hmm.

I tend to avoid this problem by not trying to think about space or space-time at all, and instead think only in terms of particle trajectories or ligh rays and how matter and energy affect them. But that’s because I’m lazy and only have a small brain…

 

 

100 Years of General Relativity

Posted in History, The Universe and Stuff with tags , on November 25, 2015 by telescoper

Many people have been celebrating the centenary of the birth of Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity this year, but it’s not obvious precisely what date to select. I’ve decided to go for today, partly because the News on BBC Radio 3 did when I work up this morning, but also because there is a well-known publication that mentions that date:

einsteingr

The 25th November 1915 was the date on which Einstein presented the “final” form of his theory to the Prussian Academy of Sciences. You can find a full translation of the paper “The Field Equations of Gravitation” here. You will see that he refers to a couple of earlier papers in that work, but I think this one is the first presentation of the full theory. It fascinated me when I was looking at the history of GR for the textbook I was working on about 20 years ago that the main results (e.g. on cosmology, the bending of light and on the perihelion of mercury) are spread over a large number of rather short papers rather than all being in one big one. I guess that was the style of the times!

So there you are, General Relativity has been around for 100 years. At least according to one particular reference frame…

 

Oh, and here’s a cute little video – funded by the Science and Technology Facilities Council – celebrating the centenary: