The End

The Final Image

Final images from well-known movies. I think it’s easier when you clearly see faces, especially if it’s multiple actors — easier to narrow down the movie, even if you don’t recognize it as the final scene.

Getting it Wrong

Scientific American claims Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth’s Heat

Nuclear fission powers the movement of Earth’s continents and crust, a consortium of physicists and other scientists is now reporting, confirming long-standing thinking on this topic.

But … there’s a problem. The paper’s abstract says nothing of the sort.

[U]ranium-238 and thorium-232 together contribute 20 (±error) TW to Earth’s heat flux. The neutrinos emitted from the decay of potassium-40 are below the limits of detection in our experiments, but are known to contribute 4 TW. Taken together, our observations indicate that heat from radioactive decay contributes about half of Earth’s total heat flux.

That’s radioactive decay, not fission. While they are both nuclear interactions, they are very different, and any science journalist writing on the topic should know the difference. David Biello and Scientific American screwed the pooch on this, and need to issue a mea culpa.

edit: maybe the body of the paper says something different, but it would be strange to not include it in the abstract

The Butler's Name is Emissivity

We got a new toy in the lab recently — a thermal sensor, aka an IR thermometer, which uses the incoming radiation profile to sense the temperature of a remote object. It’s useful because it does not require physical contact. (I wasn’t there the day it arrived, and rumour has it that it “saw” some things that cannot be unseen as it was “tested” using quasi-calibrated biological standards of temperature at 37ºC )

So how does it work?

All objects will emit electromagnetic radiation; the ideal is a blackbody which emits according to

 

\(P = Aepsilon{sigma}T^4\)

 

A is the area, sigma is a constant, T is temperature, and epsilon is the emissivity, which is 1 for a blackbody

If we look at an object about the size of a 2L soda bottle (roughly 4 cm radius, 33 cm tall), we find that at 300K, it emits about 7.5 Watts of power. Because the blackbody spectrum is a continuum, this represents a wide spectrum of wavelengths, which will have a peak in the infrared, somewhere around 10 microns. In thermal equilibrium its temperature will not be changing, which means it’s also absorbing 7.5 Watts from its surroundings (ignoring conduction and convection losses, which should be small) If the object is not in thermal equilibrium, it wither radiates more power and cools down, or absorbs extra radiative energy and heats up.

But that’s if it’s a perfect blackbody. If it isn’t — the emissivity is less than 1 — some of the incoming radiation is reflected. If less radiative power is absorbed, it has to have a lower temperature to be in equilibrium (or, at the same temperature, it radiates a lower power). So at a given emissivity, one could measure the radiation profile, and values at a few wavelengths will indicate the shape of the blackbody curve and will tell you the temperature.

I did this, though with a 12 oz (355 ml) can instead of a 2L bottle. You can see the dot of the built-in laser pointer showing that the sensor is pointed at the can.

Whoa! This is a can right out of my fridge, and is obviously not at 61ºF. What’s going on? Well, the emissivity did it. An aluminum can, even with some coloring, is nowhere near a blackbody. Depending on the particulars of how much oxidation and level of polishing, the emissivity of aluminum can range from about 0.2 to below 0.1. The thermometer’s spec sheet says it assumes a value of 0.95, so there’s quite a discrepancy. This means the sensor is getting a mix of radiation from the can (below 40ºF) and from the surrounding room-temperature items (and a little from me, sitting less than a meter away), and this skews the results.

What if we cut down on the reflections? I encased the can in a single sheet of paper.

OK, that’s significantly better. The paper is in good contact with the can and the can might be slightly warmer than in the first shot, as it’s been sitting at room temperature or been handled by a warm-blooded creature, so the surface temperature may have gone up a little. Cooling the paper down to the can’s surface temperature probably had a negligible effect.

What about a black surface?

That’s lower, though not dramatically (and probably not significant in terms of instrument sensitivity), though the same caveats apply — the can can only have warmed between shots. I didn’t return it to the fridge, and I was handling it.

There’s a cautionary tale here — you want to trust your instruments, but you have to know what is actually being measured to ensure you don’t let systematic errors into your results.

This Might Be a Job for … Me!

Label Puzzler: Original Recipe AND New Flavor?

[W]hile the box is closed, the ice cream inside exists in a quantum superposition of states in which it is both “original recipe” and “new flavor,” and only when the box is opened and the ice cream observed does the wave function collapse into either an “original” or “new” state. Alternatively, the two states would decohere and two new universes would form, in one of which you are eating original-recipe ice cream and in the other a parallel You is enjoying the new flavor. (I don’t think there’s any scenario in which a cat spontaneously forms. Please!)

Please let me know if you are interested in serving as an expert witness for a possible quantum-physics defense to consumer-law claims involving allegedly self-contradictory labels.

I’ll do this one pro bono. A new flavor has to be the original recipe. No quantum mechanics involved. People think of original recipe as meaning a throwback (especially since the New Coke debacle), but it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s only a contradiction if you know it’s not redundant. No label superposition. It would be neat to have entangled flavors, though, like one half-gallon of chocolate and one of vanilla, but you don’t know which is which until you open one of the containers.

If it's not a Scottish Incredible Garden of Cosmic Speculation, it's Crap

Scotland’s Incredible Garden of Cosmic Speculation

[I]t is based on mathematics and science mixed with nature and man-made lakes. Built in 1989, it has been called by some the most important garden in the 21st century. It is a private garden built by Charles Jencks and his late wife Maggie in Portrack House, Dumfries, Scotland.

OK, some of the “science” is, um, on the thin side. But there are still some pretty neat things.

Science in Action

There is no single scientific method, but over at Uncertain Principles, we can see an example of science getting done in a particular way.

First there’s an observation of a phenomenon, which runs contrary to another, similar phenomenon: Playground Physics: Roller Slide Mystery

The acceleration of an object sliding down a ramp, even with friction, should not depend on the mass of the object. And yet, I very clearly go faster than SteelyKid does, and while I don’t have the video to test it qualitatively, I’m pretty sure Kate’s rate of sliding falls between SteelyKid and me.

So, the question for you is: Why does that happen?

The question is raised, and discussion ensues. A promising hypothesis is offered in the comments (and not too long before I read the post, so I didn’t get a chance to think about it)

Chad fleshes out the concept behind the suggested model and presents the data:
Roller Slide Physics Explained

Lacking the time to go and get better data (which can be a proxy for those situations where circumstances dictate that you can’t get more data, we have a simulation based on the model that has been constructed.
Roller Slide Physics Simulated

The results certainly point to the model being plausible, and would allow for a more detailed experiment should someone wish to follow up on it. Not a bad representation of the scientific method. But I didn’t entitle this “Scientific Method in Action,” and for one reason:

I really ought to be doing other things, but this roller slide business kept nagging at me, and I eventually realized I could mock up a crude simulation of the results.

If you want to sum up what science all about — more than just the method — it would have to include the inquisitiveness of the people who practice it. Unsolved problems bug us, and it doesn’t even have to be your own problem. If you tell a scientist what you’re stuck on, it’s not unusual to get a response a little later on that starts off with “I was thinking about that problem — have you tried X?” When you’re stuck on your own problem, the distraction of someone else’s problem is very attractive.

See the Music

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Cool effect. Since this is not slow-motion, you might think it has to be basic aliasing: seeing a beat between the oscillations of the string and the frame-rate of a camera, often seen with wheels that look to be spinning slowly — or backward — on film. It’s not unlike the effect of a strobe light* that’s near the frequency of oscillation that make the motion seem slow or nonexistent, which sometimes happens with fluorescent (or rectified LED) lighting.

But it probably isn’t, or at least not in a simple way. When you strum a guitar the oscillations have a much longer wavelength. The fundamental mode is a standing wave where the string makes a half -wave (e.g. a 1m string has a wavelength of 2m), and there two nodes, one at either end. The next mode would have a node in the center and be a full wavelength. If the speed of sound is around 400 m/s, that gives a frequency of 200 Hz, or 400 Hz for the 2nd order mode. That’s about what we are hearing. The wavelengths shown in the video are much shorter, by more than an order of magnitude, and perhaps two. 20,000 Hz is way off. Plus the waveforms — you could get them by adding Fourier components, but that’s not going on here. This is a shutter effect, so it’s related to aliasing, but the sampling is happening as the exposure is scanned, i.e. each exposure is taking some time, and the exposure on the left side of the image does not represent the same time as the exposure on the right. This is called a rolling shutter and can have some pretty neat effects.

*Just bought a strobe. So I’ll be playing around with it.