Bad Romance

Superfluids are straight up wicked.

Dr. Oluseyi first explained them to my Electronic Measurement Techniques class this past Spring in the following manner:

Imagine you have a bathtub full of water and you take a glass, open side up, and push it halfway into the tub. The water level will rise around the class displacing an amount equal to the volume of the glass inserted into the tub. Now imagine you have a bathtub full of a superfluid. You do the same thing and push a glass into it. The superfluid will crawl up the sides of the glass and fill it until the level of the liquid is the same inside and outside of the glass.

What?

Oh, but you're too blasé to be impressed by this. So second example also courtesy of Dr. O. Now imagine you still have your bathtub full of a superfluid. You take a glass full of the same superfluid and hold it suspended a foot above the bathtub. It will crawl up the edges of the cup and down the outside before dripping into the bathtub so that all of the super fluid is once again at the same level.

WHAT?!

This could have kept going all class but Dr. O decided to get back to the "lesson" and us curious scholars were left broiling with curiosity. A little wikipedia research and I came upon the following.

"Superfluidity is a phase of matter or description of heat capacity in which unusual effects are observed when liquids (typically of heliuMonetizem-4 or helium-3) overcome friction by surface interaction when at a stage (known as the "lambda point", which is temperature and pressure, for helium-4) at which the liquid's viscosity becomes zero."

Major Point to take away:

viscocity = zero

Viscosity is the measure of the resistance of a fluid which is being deformed by shear stress or tensile stress which I will leave Rafi to explain because he just loves correcting me when I try (your public awaits, Wonderful). In simplest terms water has a low viscocity and honey has a higher one. So since a superfluid has zero viscocity it has absolutely no resistance to flowing and can just go.

Feynman worked on it!

Specifically he helped develop some theories on the roton, which was posited as an elementary excitation or quasiparticle in superfluid Helium-4. I know that that probably doesn't help clarify things but in my defense this wiki article was preceded by a warning:

"This article may be too technical for most readers"

and a request:

"Please improve this article by making it accessible to non-experts"

So of course I decided as a third year physics major I was up to the challenge but may have entered the fray overconfident.

Regardless what I find fascinating about this is that we are all taught from elementary school or something that there are three phases of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Then along the way someone throws out plasma as the fourth but never really explains it all that well except as what the core of the sun is At least that was the explanation I initially received. Then 90 percent or more go on to careers where they never even reconsider these bald statements but some go on to become chemists, physicists, engineers even and learn that this is just the beginning. There are Superfluids, supersolids,

Its as if you can pick absolutely anything you feel certain about in the sciences and with enough research you'll find you were staring at only one leaf of a tree. (the iceberg metaphor is really overdone). This is immensely satisfying and equivalently daunting.

Leninism

So Rafi tipped me off to this pretty nice video about ...

Black Holes: The other side of Infinity!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/14906/black-holes-the-other-side-of-infinity

only twenty minutes long, and worth watching for the general picture they give you and even more so for the beautiful and probably one hundred percent wrong artist's renderings. do you realize someone has a career, drawing this stuff that noone has ever seen? and only have half evidence for the existence?

enjoy.

You're nothing but Trouble!

alright so once upon a time some lunatic invented Complex Variables. the idea being, "how unfair is it that whenever we have a negative number under a radical we can't solve the problem." probably followed by collective whining from mathematicians everywhere and some grumpy faces for the rest of the day.
Then chuck norris came along and was told that he couldn't solve x^2 +1 = 0 . naturally the person with that kind of nerve (c'est gonfle!) got roundhouse kicked to the face. but chuck still needed to solve the problem and thus out of sheer norriseyness we got
√(-1)=i
...that's a letter. assigned a value that nobody knows what it actually means. then mathematicians had to take this breakthrough from Mr. Norris and develop an entirely new system of math using this idea. one of the most ridiculous decisions that was born is the fact that you can't compare two complex numbers and be able to say which is greater. 4i is not bigger than i. it has a bigger magnitude but its not actually greater than it. why? because noone knows what i is!

speaking of which i stands for imaginary. but then was renamed complex to sound more mathy. at least that's what i'm assuming. Imaginary sounds a lot cooler and is much more accurately descriptive considering that the entire system is born from a straight up lie by mathematicians. what if we could just do that on our tests.
teacher: find x
student: lets IMAGINE that there is a solution for this equation where x = m

Guess what else stops us when we try to advance mathematics? Dividing by Zero! so i propose that we follow in Norris' legendary footsteps and let 1/0 = j
then we can build an entire new type of mathematics on top of this theorem. Then we can once again add a new top tier to the number system. We'll call them Pretend numbers! and pretend numbers would be graphed on a plane without any axes. so you just put the points wherever you want and them connect them in whatever order you want and then describe what you see in each scribbley mess. Hence all pretend functions plotted would be Rorschach tests in disguise. and noone could ever fail because its all on what you see!

some of you may argue that 1/0 = infinity. That's absurd.

additionally. One thing that is interesting about complex numbers is how much easier things are to prove in it. For example the fundamental theorum of Algebra (not calculus, this is a different theorum that you've never heard of cause its sooooo fundamental) can only be proven for complex numbers not real numbers. it states that for a polynomial of degree n, there exist n roots up to multiplicity.

and when i say things are easier to prove in complex, i mean easier for crazy ridiculous geniuses like Dr. Agarwal. I admire the man and applaud his ability to do this insane branch of mathematics but I can't follow it for the life of me.

"The proof is so simple. Once again it requires only one line." *proceeds to write a proof that starts off by assuming that what its trying to prove is wrong and takes much more than one line* "It is clear?"*everyone stares blankly except for raymond who looks confused in the hopes that agarwal will catch on and explain again, and me, who lying through my teeth, nods, smiles and looks hopefully at my watch*

p.s. ladies. FIT is trying to brainwash us. did you notice how all the girls on campus wore black on Friday? everyone except Heather, and as leader of CAB she's probably in on it. ;)

p.p.s. I want to build a fort.

Left (your right). Right (your left). Center.

Get your pads, mouth guard, and helmet,were tackling relativity.
The Special Theory of Relativity as developed by the one and only Albert Einstein...includes only inertial reference frames (those that are not accelerating, i.e. superman flying at a constant velocity equivalent to that of a flying bullet, or Wonder Woman at rest in an airport wishing her invisible jet wasn't broken)

Everything's relative. Length, time, position, order of events, etc. EVERYTHING.

And experiments prove it. We can put an atomic clock on a plane, and have it measure the duration of the flight and it will differ from the amount an atomic clock on the ground measures. There is no "real" time, no "correct" position, no "actual" height, no "true" order of events. When did you read this blog? Before or after I wrote it?
(Next time you don't have your homework ready tell the teacher it wasn't assigned yet.)

It all derives from The Speed of Light Postulate: The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c, in all directions and in all inertial frames. Independent of the source motion.

side note, attempts to accelerate a particle to the speed of light have failed because when relativistic momentum is no longer proportional to velocity. so as the particle’s speed increase the acceleration caused by a given force continuously decreases. So no matter how great a force is applied as a particle reaches c, its acceleration reaches 0 and you get this graph:

-http://startswithabang.com/?p=1176

(this is from another physics orientated blog, so if you’re looking for someone who updates more regularly… also is an astrophysicist with degrees and experience and whatnot…and links to lots of other blogs. not going to lie. its pretty sweet. Props where props are due.)

Now fun stuff.

put Frederick on a train moving at a constant rate and Ishmael on a platform at rest. They will measure different spans of time it takes Freddy to pass, different lengths for the platform, and argue over whether two actions are simultaneous. What's fun is that as ridiculous as that seems, its true and the equations aren't even that hard.

Challenge question: How far does light think its traveled when it leaves the sun and goes to the earth? Hint: we measure it to have traveled 1 AU = 149, 597, 870.7 Km.

I know that is the absolute worst hint in the world since you’re already on the internet and could have googled that in about two seconds like i just did. maybe the equation would be a better hint.

Equations to use:

x’=vt’

delta t = delta t’/sq root of (1-u^2/c^22)

x’=(x-ut)/sqroot(1-u^2/c^2)

(probably these, I haven't actually worked this out yet so I cant make any promises)

Best Wishes!

There were Real Physicists!

Physics is in one word REAL. Its also broad, varying, growing, and most importantly…INSANE. Lets begin.

“You are invited to develop a theory of bottle washing. Assume that you have a large volume W of clean water and a bottle of volume B which contains a small volume D of dirt. W>>B>>D. When water is put into the bottle the dirt dissolves immediately, and when the bottle is emptied a small residue R of solution remains. How do you get the bottle as clean as possible using all the water?”

quoted from Thinking Like a Physicist: Physics Problems for Undergraduates written by the staff of the Physics Department of the University of Bristol, and edited by N Thompson. Problem 15.

That is a REAL problem on a REAL test at the REAL University of Bristol, although I think by Raymond’s definition the professor that gave it wouldn’t be a REAL physicist no matter what research or degrees they have earned.

Lets begin again.

“You are invited to develop a theory of bottle washing. YES!!!! I SCORED AN INVITE TO THE PARTY OF THE WEEK! Assume that you have a large volume W of clean water Delicious! and a bottle of volume B is that B-Awesome or Super-B? which contains a small volume D of dirt. time to get dirty! W>>B>>D. Gotta love the much greater than signs. When water is put into the bottle the dirt dissolves immediately, That's convenient, and when the bottle is emptied through direct drinking by yours truly (after being poured through a Brita *commercial plug*) a small residue R of solution remains Bummer . How do you get the bottle as clean as possible using all the water?”

I’m thinking…

A: tear off the bottom of the bottle by magic, sylar’s cutting ability, brute force, or whatever other device you prefer. then begin a continuous pouring of water through one end and emptying through the other.

2: Fill up the bottle, empty it. Repeat until W=0. Note that the bottle will never be 100 percent clean but D will approach an asymptote = 0.

III: Quit while you’re ahead. throw away the bottle and keep whatever container W is initially contained in instead.

Clover: new version of A. Note anytime the dirt comes into contact with water it dissolves instantly but some solution always remains. So what you really want to do is dilute that solution as much as possible. Maybe theres an equation for this or along the lines of but I haven’t taken fluids yet so.. what i will say is that the more number of times you fill and empty the better off you are. So maybe instead of filling the bottle up all the way, you should fill it some optimal fraction so that you fill and empty the bottle more times. Perhaps you should even change the fraction, slowly increasing or decreasing. My best guess is decreasing. This is assuming that the amount of solution that remains behind is always a constant. Note i’m also betting that in the official answer they probably set N= number of times the bottle is filled and emptied and S= amount of solution left behind each time.

Lets Continue.

“It is clear that nothing is to be gained, at any stage, by re-using the rinsings from an earlier stage, since this would only serve to increase the concentration of the residue. If a volume of water knR (kn is a numerical factor to be determined) is added during the nth cycle of operations, the amount of dirt remaining is reduced according to Dn= Dn-1R/(R+knR). Thus after p operations,

Dp/D0=II 1/(1+kn)

if kn is kept at a constant value, k, then the number of operations to use all the water is W/kR and so

D/D0 = (1+ k)^(-W/(kR))

thus

ln (D/D0) = –W/R ln(1+k)/k

The largest value of the right-hand side (=W/R) occurs when k=0, and thus the smallest value of D is given by D=D0^(-W/R) and is obtained yb using as little water as possible for each operation. It is clear from this result that no improvement results from trying any procedure other than keeping kn constant.”

-same citation.

To paraphrase the “I’m on a boat” song..

This is as Real as it gets!

So…I’m going to say that out of 50 points we probably would have gotten …

A: if the teacher has a sense of humor: 45/50, if not: 0/50

2: 4/50

III: Kicked out of the University of Bristol

Clover: 35/50

Please appreciate the fact that I wrote out my answers before looking at the book’s answer and did not go back and change a word despite the grand temptation p.s.

Your turn

Problem 60: You have no mackintosh or umbrella, and have to make a journey ton foot in steadily falling rain. FI you run, the journey will not take so long, but you may intercept more rain. Taking as your criterion the necessity to minimize the number of rain drops that strike you and assuming that the rain falls steadily and vertically at 10 m/s construct a theory that enables you to decide the best speed at which to run. Mention any short comings of the theory which occur to you.

I’ll post the answer after receiving 4 ideas from you my beloved audience.

Need more insanity?

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/academics/undergrad/problems.html

A professor, David Morin, at Harvard used to post one physics problem each week. They’re all still up with the solutions but the last one was posted May 31 2004. Happy Hunting.

Oh and this post is dedicated to Dr. Rassoul for recommending the book to me when I came to FIT to visit before applying. (7 PREPOSITIONS in one sentence!) and of course props to Raymond for welcoming us to reality.

Kelsey would ask him if he were thirsty. I'm handing him salt.

This post is dedicated to you, Dr. Kovats, for teaching Differential Equations/Linear Algebra at 8 in the morning with a level of enthusiasm never before seen in a mathematics classroom, and then switching buildings and reteaching the material and doing the EXACT same problems again at 9 am for my class with the same jolting volume and an unsurpassable excitement for math that I haven't seen since my brother and I nicknamed our Algebra 1 teacher, the Stuhlminator.
(points for me for that absurdly long statement)


For those of you unfortunates who have not had the opportunity to sit in on one of these great man's lectures I offer you the following quotes.
Please note that every single one of these was shouted in a voice that can only be described as gleeful.

"We've got a 2 here, a 3, and a finsky (five)!"

"Absolutely! Absolutely! *walks towards the board, walks away from the board, shrugges shoulders all while continuing* Absolutely! Absolutely! Yes! Of course you can! Absolutely!"

"Before we start giving ourselves high fives all across the room!! we've got to make sure!!"

"Roll the Dice, going for a 5!!!"

"I find multiplication a challenge!"

"We'll use a and b that's the gentlemanly thing!"
(to which Raymond whispered, "See that, he's wooing you." Greatest word choice in the word, well done Sir.)

"ITS ALREADY IN ECHELON FORM!"

"Okay, Okay, Okay, what are we doing?"

"You have infinite solutions! NO! Even more than that, you have uncountably many solutions!!!"

(while looking at a 4 by 4 matrix) "There's Definitely something attractive about this thing."

Kovats: "what can you tell me about this matrix"
Austin: "Its really close to echelon form."
Kovats:" ITS REALLY REALLY REALLY CLOSE!!!"

"This place is like vegas"

to student who just asked a homework question
"I have no idea how to do this problem...THESE ARE THE ANSWERS!!!!"

"There's something offensive about calling this matrix star"

while about to start a Mixing Problem:
Here's the point, when I was in college there was only one energy drink. It was called Jolt cola. It came in a red can with a yellow lightning bolt across the front and the slogan: All the sugar and twice the caffeine. and that was it. that was the drink. One day at a concert i saw a man with a red shirt and the lightning bolt across it and then under that the words: Jolt Cola, All the sugar twice the caffeine..."I WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THAT YOUNG MAN ANYWHERE!"

student: yank out the e^x out of the first column
Kovats: lets talk more about yanking
Class laughs silently and then becomes quiet
I burst out laughing
Kovats: "CHUCKLES! What To DO!?"
Xenia: pull an e^x out of the first, e^2x out of the second and e^3x out of the third column
Kovats: YOU BEAST!!!

"Here's the thing, you CANT do drugs before coming to class!"

Right before taking a derivative that will include 5 product rules
"okay...we RIDE!"


Let me leave you with a few final thoughts...Kovats on a blind date... Kovats on the upwards climb of a Roller Coaster... Kovats in a library with a very strict librarian...Kovats realizing that his favorite type of cereal is half off...


p.s. watch this post, more quotes to come.

its all rather super...b isn't it?

so today we're once again discussing the amazing, yet oh-so-commonplace, 100% wave, 100% particle phenomenon that we commonly refer to as light. Whats the latest buzz?
Those of you who read my previous post "You're Hideous and Sexy" are already aware that light is made of particles. Those particles are referred to as photons. Photons have no mass (although i recently heard that this might no longer be true) and are small packets of pure energy. Now when most people think of light they generally think only of visible light (red to violet). Surely its only this light that has experiences this odd wave-particle duality? No of course not, what kind of blog would that be? The entire electromagnetic spectrum from infrared to radio waves to Ultraviolet waves to gamma rays, etc not only all experience this odd dual form but are all composed from the same Photons! not really all that shocking and yet...the only thing that makes these things different therefore are not the material they're formed from but their frequency and wavelength. Its like if you changed the frequency at which you were doing something and all of a sudden you became something completely different (from a mild mannered reporter to the one and only Superman! (Wonder Woman is cooler))
Some of you are still disappointed. Get back to the parallel universes you exclaim. (Feeling thirsty? ) But wait! There's more!
...You and I and everyone else you know emit light....
does your face currently look like this ? --------------------> >:(
good.
First let me just clarify that I dont mean we reflect light. Of course we do, otherwise all humans would be invisible. (listen up Department of Defense, there's a new way for you to camouflage planes or people or whatnot)
We emit light.
If you go and stand in a perfectly dark, light-tight room, while being filmed by an ultra sensitive camera and then watch that film.. You'll die in seven days. No! Oops, wrong movie. No, you'll see your body glowing. Interestingly enough your face will be glowing the brightest and your entire body will dim or brighten with your "metabolic rhythms"
need more? GLOW .Below you can see the findings for yourself.