Tag Archives: physics

what, exactly, is momentum?

This is a physics topic – maybe not of interest to many, but of interest to me as I happen to be taking (suffering through?) a hydraulics course at the moment. Like energy, we kind of intuitively know what momentum is, but we have a hard time describing it satisfactorily in words. Apparently, there are philosophers of science that spend entire careers examining words used by others (like Isaac Newton) to try to describe it. Once upon a time, a philosopher and a scientist were the same thing, in fact.

Momentum is about force. It is a thing that does not change unless “external forces” are imposed on a system. In fluid mechanics, there is an imaginary thing called a “control volume” which obeys this law. You can do calculations on this, and then you can go into a laboratory where you have a pump and a glass channel (picture a long aquarium) with very low friction, and show that your math matches what happens in the real world. There can be “internal forces” in the fluid which allow energy to change (well, change from energy embodied in pressure – potential energy – and/or velocity – kinetic energy – to heat, which then just drifts off into the air. But the momentum does not change because there are no external forces (ignoring the friction of that slippery, slippery glass.

Momentum is a function of mass and velocity, we learn in high school. Force, we learn in high school, is the product of mass and acceleration, and acceleration is a change in velocity over time. So there – did I explain it to myself? Not quite, but that at least helped me to think it through.

Even if ChatGPT could produce a more coherent version of what I wrote above (which is possible), that would not have helped me think this through and incorporate more of the real world into my mental model of how the real world works. Because thinking and writing go together. So I am not going to give up writing any time soon. Even if nobody read my writing here (and if you did, I apologize), it helped me to write this down. I will skim over this later at some point using some rough version of “spaced repetition”, and that will also help my feeble human brain to incorporate this knowledge into my mental model.

Talking can also sometimes help upgrade our mental models, although most talking is useless. For example, I was discussing momentum with my professor recently in the mens room. So ladies, if you were wondering what men talk about in the mens room, now you know, or at least now you know what two random men were discussing in one random mens room on one random day. And yes, we know you complain about us in the ladies’ room, and that complaining about men is an important part of female bonding that really doesn’t have much to do with us. And this is okay.

cosmogenesis

Here’s a fascinating article about the possibility of creating a new universe in a laboratory (or many of them). This is not about virtual reality or artificial intelligence, this is about creating a wormhole to an actual new physical baby universe. A number of physicists think it is theoretically possible and take it seriously. This has any number of mind-bending implications. First, our own universe could have come about this way, whether created by a deity as some of us imagine or by some intelligent but fallible mortal being out there. Second, and the article goes into this, the creator of such a universe might be able to observe it but would have no control over it (although at least in theory, they might be able to actually travel to it.) Third, and the article doesn’t mention this, let’s say humanity somehow manages to survive the billions or trillions of years it would take for our own universe to run its course and begin to collapse (assuming that is going to happen), maybe this creates the possibility that our species could exist forever. Well, we have a lot of things to figure out between now and then obviously. One final thing I learned from this article is that physicists also have a theory of how our universe could have arisen completely spontaneously from nothing at all and without intervention by any external intelligent being. Even that has implications – if it could happen once, does it just continue to happen every now and then somewhere in space and time? The interesting implication there could be that intelligent life has always existed somewhere out there and always will.

There is science fiction about this of course. Starmaker by Olaf Stapledon comes to mind, and of course The Matrix. And of course, Lisa Simpson. There must be others.

more on Richard Muller

BREAKING NEWS: According to Richard Muller from UC Berkeley, global warming is caused by the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Not changes in the Earth’s orbit, not changes in volcanic activity. Either changes in carbon dioxide or something else that happens to exactly match changes in carbon dioxide. But in all seriousness, this guy is a serious physicist who set out to challenge the findings of the IPCC using hard data, and says he ended up confirming them beyond a shadow of a doubt.

are you smarter than Einstein?

It seems to me that spending your life trying to disprove Einstein is a path to likely disappointment and failure. Nonetheless there are brave souls who dare to challenge (well, tweak maybe…) his theories.

FOR 80 YEARS, scientists have puzzled over the way galaxies and other cosmic structures appear to gravitate toward something they cannot see. This hypothetical “dark matter” seems to outweigh all visible matter by a startling ratio of five to one, suggesting that we barely know our own universe. Thousands of physicists are doggedly searching for these invisible particles.

But the dark matter hypothesis assumes scientists know how matter in the sky ought to move in the first place. At the end of 2016, a series of developments has revived a long-disfavored argument that dark matter doesn’t exist after all. In this view, no missing matter is needed to explain the errant motions of the heavenly bodies; rather, on cosmic scales, gravity itself works in a different way than either Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein predicted.

The latest attempt to explain away dark matter is a much-discussed proposal by Erik Verlinde, a theoretical physicist at the University of Amsterdam who is known for bold and prescient, if sometimes imperfect, ideas. In a dense 51-page paper posted online on Nov. 7, Verlinde casts gravity as a byproduct of quantum interactions and suggests that the extra gravity attributed to dark matter is an effect of “dark energy”—the background energy woven into the space-time fabric of the universe.