Archive for the ‘Physics’ Category

In what is certifiably a rare occurrence, I’ve found myself reasonably impressed by the skepticism found in a special news article.  Specifically, by the piece 9/11 Conspiracy Files, which aired on CBC Newsworld this week.

The hour-long program focuses on perhaps the largest foundation of the 9/11 “Truthers’” conspiracy theory, the collapse of WTC7.  In it, while true douchebags like Dylan Avery of Loose Change are given time to have their say, it’s the engineers, firefighters and the families of the victims who have the final word.  What’s more, the program makes no hesitation to refute conspiracy theory claims surrounding the collapse of the third tower with real science, reason, and at times just plain common sense.

For those unfamiliar with the Truthers’ nonsense, the meat of the 9/11 conspiracy theory surrounds the collapse of WTC7, which they say is a “smoking gun” for the government’s supposed involvement in the attacks, as it had not appeared to have sustained significant damage and must therefore have been destroyed in a controlled demolition through the use of explosives.  The program’s response to this argument, based on official research into the collapse of the tower, leaves no stone unturned, as it picks apart every conspiracy theory claim neatly thoroughly.

First and foremost, the argument that WTC7 suffered no damage prior to its collapse is debunked by foorage from all angles of broken windows as well as fire and smoke pluming from all sides.  On the claim that the fire left raging in the building could not be hot enough to melt the steel foundations of the structure, a team of engineers explain that the melting of the steel isn’t necessary to produce a collapse.  Instead, the steel needs merely to be weakened by the intense temperatures of the fire to the point where it can no longer support the weight of the structure (This is accomplished long before the steel is at its melting point).  Conspiracy theorists even argue that the sight and sound of the building’s collapse indicate that explosives were present in the building to initiated its destruction.  The program offers two explanations for this.

One is practical:  Those “hearing” and “seeing” explosions have little to no experience on what real-life explosions sound and look like, and thus cannot be relied on to provide a realistic assessment.  The other explanation is more technical.  The “explosion” seen by observers is itself a result of the collapse.  As the structure’s foundations fails and it begins to collapse, air within the building is trapped, much like in a balloon.  The pressure builds until the air is finally able to escape, which it does very violently.  Indeed, this may be called an explosion, but not as a result of explosives.  It is, rather, a result of the physics of the building’s collapse, and nothing more.

We here at Lintbox have yet to write an extensive piece on 9/11 conspiracy theories, which we should sometime in the future (at the risk of facing the often very harsh responses from Truthers.)  Nevertheless, CBC/BBC managed to produce one very satisfying, scientific approach to the conspiracy theory, and for that I’m left impressed.  Maybe there’s hope for the media, after all!

One of the hallmarks of good science is reproducibility. We know that theories are correct in large part because the results they predict are not only observed once, but observed repeatedly under similar circumstances by different people.

This is why this recent article from the BBC is so interesting. It isn’t the first time that we have been able to observe dark matter; rather, the importance lies in that we have found a second example of dark matter that matches the first. This helps to prove that our first observations were not mistaken, or anomalous. This latest observation confirms our current theories and predictions about how dark matter should behave.

This phenomenon has been seen before, in a structure called the Bullet Cluster – which also formed after the collision of two large galaxy clusters. The Bullet Cluster lies closer to Earth, at a distance of 3.4 billion light-years.

“It puts to rest all the worries that the Bullet Cluster was an anomalous case. We have gone out and found another one,” co-author Richard Massey, from the Royal Observatory Edinburgh, told BBC News.

So while it may not be as earth-shattering as our first observation of this type, it is nonetheless an important part of the scientific process. By observing these properties, we are able to proceed with increased confidence in our theories about dark matter.

—

• BBC.co.uk: Cosmic crash unmasks dark matter

This article was linked to on Digg recently, and there has been some misunderstanding of its content. It concerns a discovery of a new catalyst that could make it possible to use sunlight to directly split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This might turn out to be quite important in the future (if we start using hydrogen as fuel, and if this turns out to be more efficient than other ways of producing hydrogen, etc.), but you can’t mention “water” and “energy” in the same sentence without certain people assuming that the useable energy is in the water itself. I know I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: water is already in its lowest chemical energy state. You cannot extract energy from water using chemical* means. That means no water-powered car engines, no water-powered batteries, etc.

Of course this discovery is interesting enough in itself. Storing solar energy for later use has always been a bottleneck in this particular form of alternative energy, so if you could store it as chemical energy in hydrogen, it could potentially surpass the standard lead-acid or lithium-polymer battery solution. However, this remains to be seen. For the time being, this technology is still in experimental stages.

*Other forms of energy are routinely extracted from water in order to generate electrical power, for example kinetic/potential energy in a hydroelectic station, or thermal energy at a geothermal plant. The hydrogen in water could also be used as fusion fuel**, thus releasing nuclear energy.

**Note that a fusion reaction would far surpass (by several orders of magnitude) the energy required to split the hydrogen and oxygen apart, thus avoiding the problem that makes it impossible to get a surplus of chemical energy from water.

It seems every other day that someone comes up with a way to extract useful chemical energy from water. The fact that it’s physically impossible is less important than the fact that one can always find gullible people to fork over large quantities of money for these so-called “inventions”.

But this guy is really taking it to the next level. 25 employees, 60 MILLION dollars in venture capital funding, and a 2000-page book describing his new theory of quantum physics; I’m almost impressed by the amount of effort he’s put into this scam. He even put a new twist on the usual process for getting energy from water. From the article:

Mills’ theory, which he expounds upon in his self-published 2,000 page book, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, rests on what he describes as his discovery of the hydrino – an altered version of hydrogen that has an energy level lower than its ground state, or the baseline energy level. These modified atoms, he argues, are the stuff that comprises dark matter, the invisible material that many scientists believe composes more than 90% of the universe. The mechanism that creates hydrinos – a chemical reaction whose released energy can allegedly be harnessed for power – is what Mills calls the BlackLight Process.

What the article doesn’t say is that this is a pretty stardard explanation of zero-point energy – the kind found powering starships and death-rays in science fiction, not the actual scientific concept. The crux of the matter is the supposed “energy level lower than ground state”, which is impossible by definition.

It is true that nobody has ever created a new theory of physics without first questioning the old theories. In fact, scientists are encouraged to look for flaws in established theories in order to better understand the universe. But for a new theory to supplant an old one (for example, relativity superseding Newtonian mechanics), there needs to be quite a body of repeatable experimental evidence, and the theory must bear the closest scrutiny by other scientists. Dr. Randell Mills (note that he is a physician, not a physicist) has only the results from his laboratory, and responds to academic criticism with the same old crap about how science is hostile to anyone who would try to think differently, etc. His exact quote is “As long as you’re in the mainstream, you’re fine. But if you’re doing something paradigm-changing, you’re proving that academics have been going down the wrong path,” which quite frankly makes me angry. He is nothing more than a con artist, and to see him accusing people who are doing real science is infuriating.

As for whoever gave him $60,000,000 to develop a free energy machine, well, I hope they weren’t counting on recovering that investment. (Seriously, where can I find such stupid and naive people with so much money to give out? I’ve got a lovely Brooklyn Bridge here to sell them…)

Let’s talk about Orgone. A form of energy allegedly discovered by Wilhelm Reich, it has spawned an entire system of belief and generation of quackery. Due to the complex nature of this post, I’m going to break it down into topics. Let’s start with the basics:

What is Orgone?

From Wikipedia:

Orgone energy is a term coined by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich for the “universal life energy” which he was convinced to have discovered in published experiments in the late 1930s. Reich claimed that Orgone energy was a “life energy” which filled all space, was blue in color, and that certain forms of illness were the consequence of depletion or blockages of the energy within the body. These theories are considered pseudoscience by most.

In many ways, the concept of Orgone bears certain resemblances to the Chinese concept of Qi, or how the force worked in Star Wars before Lucas changed his mind and decided informed us it was caused by midi-chlorians. The concept was actually originally based on the Freudian concept of libido. Though Orgone doesn’t obey the same set of laws as the rest of the physical universe (it isn’t subject to the laws of Thermodynamics, for example), it can still be captured and directed. Again, much like Qi, Reich believed that certain illnesses were caused by a lack of Orgone in key places in the body. Naturally, Reich created a machine called a cloudbuster, which he claimed could cause clouds to dissipate merely by manipulating Orgone fields. Later, certain conspiracy groups adapted the technology to disperse so-called chemtrails.

So why should we reject this premise?

Lack of any evidence. Beyond that, lack of any hypothesized mechanism for what Orgone is, how it behaves, or how it is able to do what people think it does. Wilhelm Reich was not a total crackpot; realizing that he was dealing with science outside of his professed field, he enlisted the help of some notable physicists in order to verify his claims. Subsequent tests showed that Reich’s Orgone accumulator was not able to generate the intended effect. Since then, nobody has been able to show conclusively (i.e. in a controlled test) any effect from the direction or accumulation of Orgone energy. Nor have physicists, with their ever-increasing knowledge of what the universe is made of, uncovered some type of particle or field that bears resemblance to Orgone.
Read the rest of this entry »

Free energy (and its little brother, perpetual motion), is an idea that’s been around a long time, and has persisted despite the complete and utter failure of every single invention purported to generate energy “from nothing”. Why has it lasted so long? It seems that there are two reasons for this: the first is that there is confusion over what actually constitutes “free” energy. There are two types of free energy devices; those that generate power from nothing, and those that generate power from some unknown external source. The “power-from-nothing” types often use magnets in their construction, and are usually disclaimed with a “would work if there was less friction”. Of course, the laws of thermodynamics expressly forbid such things from existing. So why do they continue to be invented?
Read the rest of this entry »

To say that claims of free-energy are frequent would be an understatement. It seems that nearly every week, be it on youtube, personal websites or news reports, someone, somewhere, somehow claims to have successfully challenged the very core of physics. None do. More often than not (roughly 9 out of every 10 times) magnets are involved. Every once in a while, however, a gizmo appears with equally absurd claims, but different mechanics.

This would be such a device.

The information provided is dubious, as is usually the case, but the claim is very straightforward: The device is purported to output far more energy than it uses. This, I can say with absolute certainty, is not the case.

To break it down, the device is a water pump seemingly designed to cause a reaction within the liquid called inertial cavitation. As the rotor spins rapidly, the gaps in its surface cause pockets of extremely low pressure to form. Any liquid within the presence of these pockets evaporate into bubbles (or cavities), which, within the presence of the higher pressure surrounding the pockets, eventually collapse in a very violent reaction. So violent, in fact, that the resulting implosion can not only emit a burst of light, but also reach temperatures as high as five thousand degrees Kelvin! Think about that. Through pressure changes within a liquid, you can initiate a reaction resulting in the same temperature as that of our sun’s photosphere!

As cool a phenomenon as cavitation is, the machine as demonstrated in the video seems, at least to me, very lame. A phrase fundamental to the skeptic’s creed is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that is not what’s provided in the clip. The claim provided is that the overall efficiency of the machine is 170% thereby contradicting the laws of thermodynamics, although no mention is made as to how this figure was reached. Of course, there’s a brief shot of two pressure gauges, but what does this mean? What are they measuring, exactly?

I suspect, at the very least, that any calculations made in determining both the energy input and output of the device are either erroneous or a downright fabrication. That’s not to say that the owner of the water pump is a charlatan, however that possibility, as always, should remain on the table. Until the pump can be verified by a panel of scientists, the laws of thermodynamics remain comfortably intact.

Free-energy proponents may find this reasoning, or my doubt, unfair… but that’s science, folks. Every claim, no matter how wonderful it may be, must be examined, tested, and reproduced by peers if it’s ever to be adopted as a science. Until it is, [I wouldn't hold my breath] it seems we are still at the mercy of the laws of conservation of mass and energy.

In an article I stumbled across recently, I discovered that ’science’ has managed to show how god can exist, yet remain completely unobservable. Apparently this is tantamount to proving the existence of god. The only catch is that (as it turns out) god is invisible. This theory states that god exists in the dimensions of space that we cannot directly observe.

A revolutionary discovery of the theory is that the whole universe should have nine or ten dimensions of space, instead of three dimensions (length, width and height). Then, why do we see only three dimensions? In the earlier version of the string theory, it was assumed that those extra dimensions were too small to be observed. Thus, the whole universe is essentially the same as the 3D world. If this were true, there would be no place for God.

A universe with no place for God?! Who could imagine such a place? This theory seems to take the concept of a god of the gaps to a new extreme. The obvious question that comes to my mind is why an all-powerful god would be relegated to exist in only the dimensions that humans cannot directly observe. This doesn’t reek of post-hoc justification at all. What’s worse is that it isn’t even compelling justification — it’s just wrong; and you don’t need an advanced degree in physics to recognize that the conclusions drawn from the ‘facts’ in the article are not scientific at all.

It astounds me what lengths people will go to in order to justify belief in an irrational preconceived notion.