mellowtigger: (vote)

Simpsons Kang and Kodos two-party system, "But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system.  You have to vote for one of us."I learned something interesting today about democracy. The first time I mentioned ranked choice voting on this blog was back in 2011 during the Occupy movement. I consider it essential to saving democracy in the USA. I've also alluded to the fact that democratic principles (lowercase "d", not like the Democratic party) are strong in Minnesota. I've even used a phrase like "my kind of crazy" during several elections here when talking about non-mainstream candidates available here for me to vote for. (I did it in 2010, 2021, 2022, and 2023.) It turns out that local Minneapolis mayoral politics make a great example of the principle that "instant runoff voting" can benefit society by encouraging new behavior from our political parties and candidates. There's actually math to support my gut feeling.

One of the channels I watch sometimes on YouTube when I want to learn something is Veritasium: An element of truth. They recently produced the video below, examining the history and mathematical theory behind voting in a democracy. How do you achieve fair results that represent the proverbial "will of the people"? I learned a lot from this piece, and I recommend watching all of this 23-minute video.

I think they didn't spend enough time at the beginning of the video dunking on the current election method in the USA. I find our method distasteful and have urged others to follow me in voting with your conscience instead of as a high school pep rally to support your "team" in perpetual 2-party spiral downward on our collective way to disaster. I'm happy to see Minneapolis represented in this video, since I praise Minnesota society occasionally. I really did find a good home for myself here. The video failed to make any judgment on the severity (I think that's the word I want?) of the voting flaw in democracy. The flaws they offer do seem to me like exceptionally rare cases, when considering elections among huge populations of people. How often would these failure modes actually present themselves? I still advocate ranked choice voting. Unfortunately, our Minnesota state and national positions are still single-choice, winner-takes-all voting instead. My sample ballot shows me that I have nine candidates as options for President in November. I intend to make full use of my options, not succumb to the 2-party mythos as some unofficial "requirement" of my voting participation. I do, therefore, need to learn more about these 9 options. (Okay, just 8 choices, since RFK Jr has already dropped out to endorse Trump.)

Now, however, I need to learn more about this newfangled "rated voting system", since it seems to be even better at avoiding the flaws of democratic voting. I mean, if it was good enough to elect popes (for over 1/4 millennium) and the United Nations' Secretary General, then maybe it's good enough for the rest of us plebeians to use too.

biology is wondrous

2022-Feb-22, Tuesday 07:24 pm
mellowtigger: (hypercube)
The universe is deliciously complex and offers wonders aplenty, from the small to the large.

The biochemical processes in our bodies are immensely intricate and "look" like robotic machinery in operation.  Those atomic-level structures can be captured only in still images of dead tissue by electron microscope imaging.  This weekend, I happened across a great video that shows both the complexity and the sheer speed of these processes.  It offers what we would see if we could use electron scanning on live cells in motion.  Sure, the video is a scripted animation (and the added sound track is annoying), but this visualization of what we know about biology is still amazing.  The 3-minute marker is where we get to see some of the folding and interaction of complex molecules on a dna strand.  This is what happens in every cell of our body in every moment.



It doesn't feel like any great leap of metaphor to see "life" at both the tiniest scale of unliving molecules and a vastly larger scale.  The Gaia theory continues to gain acceptance, as with a new paper by astrobiologists who offer the idea of planetary-scale intelligence.  It reminds me of the technologically-instantiated personality of our planet in David Brin's sci-fi book, "Earth".  I believe that our planet will get there, if humans don't destroy our ecosystems (and ourselves) first.

when gaming is too real

2022-Jan-01, Saturday 10:57 am
mellowtigger: (ouroboros)
I woke up this morning to -23C/-10F air temp (-34C/-30F wind chill). Between this cold weather and recent episodes of the depressing post-apocalyptic Station Eleven, my thoughts are naturally about long-term sustainability.

I don't mind games with a steep learning curve, but Oxygen Not Included has a learning cliff. I'm nearly 100 hours into it, and I still don't know how to use most of the mechanics in this fun (and funny) exploration and base-building game. I'm NOT recommending this game now, because it's just so difficult. I AM, however, recommending these top-10 hints. Human civilization will need them.


I've long argued that zero growth is a necessary phase for humanity.  Degrowth will be the painful part for everyone, since there is no unexplored land to exploit and temporarily tip the balance toward growth's favor.  (It appears that endemic flu was more deadly than we commonly realized.  Endemic Covid-19, however, will surely lead us to a higher death rate, potentially giving the USA negative population growth thanks to anywhere from 2-10x higher mortality than flu.)

Stifled population growth is hint #1 for this game.  Keeping my colony to only 6 duplicants is how my 2nd game attempt is surviving so far.  That, plus switching to solar at the first opportunity while maintaining extremely low power demands.  I'm at the point now, though, that adding complex systems is the only way forward, and that complexity includes air quality maintenance in the workplace to prevent disease.

Sound familiar?  This game is 2 (or 4) years old already, and it predates the current pandemic.  It's not specifically about economics or politics either, but when your game emulates a long term fight against the harsh physics of entropy... it has lessons to offer.
mellowtigger: (astronomy)
Would terraforming Mars be self-defeating? Many articles discuss how to terraform Mars, but they seem to assume that a human-friendly atmosphere would just "stay there". Mars is smaller than Earth, therefore its gravity is weaker, so would a new atmosphere just evaporate into space because the planet could not retain it gravitationally?

The short answer is: Mars can retain a human-friendly atmosphere.

The long answer is detailed below. I originally wrote this article in January 2006 while examining Earth. Since that website will disappear in coming months, I wanted to republish it here in my blog so it stays online somewhere. This version, obviously, will focus on Mars.


Retention of Atmosphere by a Planetary Body

velocity

Whether we consider small atoms or huge rocket ships, there is just one property that determines if something can escape the pull of the planet's gravity: velocity. If something travels with enough speed directly away from the planet, then it will be able to overcome the persistent force that would otherwise send it back to the surface. It doesn't matter if we measure baseballs or rockets or molecules of air. They all obey this same basic principle. If it moves fast enough, then it will escape.

Reaching escape velocity is helpful to us when we launch probes to other planets. We might worry, though, about unintended loss of material from a planet. After all, air itself can escape out into space! If a molecule of air is travelling fast enough, it will leave the atmosphere forever. Two questions become very important in understanding this effect:

1) how fast does the molecule have to move in order to reach escape velocity, and
2) what can cause it to travel that fast?

escape velocity

The effect of gravity is well studied, and determining escape velocity is an easy calculation. The only information that we need about a planet is its mass and its radius. We insert those two values into a formula and then we find the speed needed to escape the surface of the planet while traveling straight upward.

namevalueunits
escape velocity formulavelocity = √2 * G * mass / radiusm / s
gravitational constantG = 6.67 x 10-14Nm2/g2 = m3/(g * sec2)
mars massmass = 6.42 x 1026g
mars radiusradius = 3.40 x 106m
now just plug into the formula...
mars escape velocity =2 * G * mass / radius 
2 * (6.67 x 10-14) * (6.42 x 1026>) / (3.40 x 106)(m3/(g * sec2)) * (g) / (m)
2 * (1.26 x 107)(m2/sec2)
5.02 x 103m / s

So anything on Mars that moves straight upward at 5.02 kilometers per second will manage to escape the planet and travel on to other destinations. That speed is enormous! That's why space launch vehicles are so huge; they require large amounts of fuel to accelerate their payload to escape velocity. Could anything around us reach such speeds unassisted by human intervention? Could air itself travel that fast?

air temperature

It is easy to measure the speed of a large object. For example, every car comes equipped with a speedometer that informs the driver of the car's rate of movement. It seems much more difficult to measure the speed of a very small object, though. How do you watch the movement of an atom, an object so small that you can't even see it? It turns out that we do it all the time. Rather than measure the speed of a single atom, though, we measure the average speed of lots of atoms together. It's simple, really. We just take its temperature.

A speedometer measures the movement rate of a large vehicle, and a thermometer measures the relative movement rate of lots of atoms together. The higher the temperature, the faster those atoms are moving. Likewise, the colder that something gets, the slower its atoms are moving around. The relationship between speed and temperature is more obvious in a gas, but even in solids it is still true that the individual atoms are jittering quickly in their place. The Kelvin temperature scale is anchored at zero degrees at the low end of the scale because that is the point at which the atomic movement has slowed as much as it can. It's not possible for the atoms to move any slower, so they are as cold as anything can get. Zero degrees Kelvin is called "absolute zero". The relationship between speed and temperature is easy to demonstrate.

Fill a balloon with air and tie off the end of the balloon so that no air escapes. Notice the size of the baloon. It keeps that size because of the air pressure inside it. That pressure is generated by all of the small molecules of air zooming off in random directions until they hit the wall of the balloon surface. They push outward and then bounce back to travel in another direction. They ricochet inside the balloon, exerting a constant pressure trying to expand the balloon outward. Similarly the air outside is bouncing against the balloon trying to crush it inward. They eventually reach equilibrium, but you can change that balance by changing the temperature in the balloon. Hold the balloon under hot tap water (or hold over a pot of boiling water). The faster molecules hit the wall of the balloon with greater force, expanding the balloon. Hold the balloon under cold tap water (or place in the refrigerator). The slower molecules hit the wall with less force, allowing the balloon to shrink. Temperature affects air pressure (but that's just a bonus lesson to be learned) because it affects the speed of molecules.

average molecular speed

The law of temperature and pressure is also well studied, so to calculate the speed of an air molecule we can once again use a simple formula. All we need to know is the air molecule's mass and temperature.

nameformula
1.66 x 10-27 * atomic mass =
mass (in kilograms)
H, hydrogen atom1.66 x 10-27 * 1.00794 =1.67 x 10-27
H2, hydrogen gas1.66 x 10-27 * 2.01588 =3.35 x 10-27
He, helium atom1.66 x 10-27 * 4.002602 =6.65 x 10-27
C, carbon atom1.66 x 10-27 * 12.0107 =1.99 x 10-26
N, nitrogen atom1.66 x 10-27 * 14.0067 =2.33 x 10-26
O, oxygen atom1.66 x 10-27 * 15.9994 =2.66 x 10-26
H2O, water1.66 x 10-27 * 18.01528 =2.99 x 10-26
CO, carbon monoxide1.66 x 10-27 * 28.0101 =4.65 x 10-26
N2, nitrogen gas1.66 x 10-27 * 28.0134 =4.65 x 10-26
NH3, ammonia1.66 x 10-27 * 31.03722 =5.15 x 10-26
O2, oxygen gas1.66 x 10-27 * 31.9988 =5.31 x 10-26
CO2, carbon dioxide1.66 x 10-27 * 44.0095 =7.31 x 10-26
note: ultraviolet light can split water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen molecules
into their constituent atoms

The concept that we're examining is the "kinetic energy" (energy of motion) of molecules. Physics already has two simple formulas for measuring kinetic energy. If we compare them to each other, we can solve to find the velocity that we're needing.

kinetic energy
(motion)
=kinetic energy
(average for a gas)
1/2 * (m * v2)=3/2 * (k * T)
m * v2=3 * k * T
v2=(3 * k * T) / m
v=(3 * k * T) / m

The value of "k" is the Boltzmann constant, 1.38 x 10-23 Joule / Kelvin. The average temperature "T" on Mars is 220 Kelvin. (For the rest of the world, that's -53 Celsius. And for backwater Americans, that's -63 Farenheit.) And those are the last two values that we need. Let's fill in the formula and see what we find out.

namemass
(in kilograms)
formula

(3 * k * T) / m =
average speed
(in meters/second)
H, hydrogen atom1.67 x 10-27(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(1.67 x 10-27) =
2.34 x 103
H2, hydrogen gas3.35 x 10-27(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(3.35 x 10-27) =
1.65 x 103
He, helium atom6.65 x 10-27(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(6.65 x 10-27) =
1.17 x 103
C, carbon atom1.99 x 10-26(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(1.99 x 10-26) =
6.77 x 102
N, nitrogen atom2.33 x 10-26(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(2.33 x 10-26) =
6.25 x 102
O, oxygen atom2.66 x 10-26(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(2.66 x 10-26) =
5.85 x 102
H2O, water2.99 x 10-26(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(2.99 x 10-26) =
5.52 x 102
CO, carbon monoxide4.65 x 10-26(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(4.65 x 10-26) =
4.43 x 102
N2, nitrogen gas4.65 x 10-26(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(4.65 x 10-26) =
4.43 x 102
NH3, ammonia5.15 x 10-26(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(5.15 x 10-26) =
4.21 x 102
O2, oxygen gas5.31 x 10-26(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(5.31 x 10-26) =
4.14 x 102
CO2, carbon dioxide7.31 x 10-26(3 * (1.38 x 10-23) * (220)) /
(7.31 x 10-26) =
3.53 x 102

According to these results, none of the atoms or molecules listed here could reach escape velocity on mars because they are all below the necessary 5.02 x 103 m/s. That's good news, right? Well, not really. The problem arises from the fact that we measure the temperature of a large sample of air all at once, not each individual molecule separately. The velocity that we compute is just the average velocity of all molecules in the group of air that we measured; it is not the velocity of any particular molecule. Some of them are moving faster than this calculated amount, and some are moving slower.

above-average molecular speed

Most molecules will have a velocity near the average in their group, but a few will have twice that velocity. Fewer will have four times that velocity. Even fewer will have six times that velocity. The general rule (for which I have not yet found a mathematical explanation) is that a molecule will escape into space if 6X its average velocity is sufficient to reach the planet's escape velocity. Once that threshold is reached, the planet cannot retain that type of molecule because random exchanges of energy will give too many individual molecules the boost of kinetic energy that they need to speed away from the planet.

It's time for the big question...
so how does Mars fare under this new scheme?

nameaverage speed
(in meters/second)
6X average speed
(in meters/second)
> escape speed?
(5.02 x 103 m/s)
H, hydrogen atom2.34 x 1031.40 x 104279%
H2, hydrogen gas1.65 x 1039.89 x 103197%
He, helium atom1.17 x 1037.02 x 103140%
C, carbon atom6.77 x 1024.06 x 10381%
N, nitrogen atom6.25 x 1023.75 x 10375%
O, oxygen atom5.85 x 1023.51 x 10370%
H2O, water5.52 x 1023.31 x 10366%
CO, carbon monoxide4.43 x 1022.66 x 10353%
N2, nitrogen gas4.43 x 1022.66 x 10353%
NH3, ammonia4.21 x 1022.52 x 10350%
O2, oxygen gas4.14 x 1022.49 x 10350%
CO2, carbon dioxide3.53 x 1022.12 x 10342%


By these calculations, Mars retains all but hydrogen (whether in its atomic or molecular form) and helium. So if we found a way to mimic Earth air composition on Mars, the planet could gravitationally retain the atoms and molecules. But there's still a catch...

global warming

The mean temperature on Mars is 220 Kelvin. What if we wanted to improve the temperature as well as the chemical composition of the atmosphere? Would the air at 282 Kelvin (Earth's current average) still remain bound to the planet? Plugging the new temperature into the formulas, I find very similar results. The next heaviest common atom is Carbon, and it reaches only 92% of the necessary velocity to escape. Since it doesn't usually exist in a gaseous state, we have no worries about its approach to 100%. Nitrogen reaches 85% which might be troublesome, depending on just how long a time period we want to examine, or how accurate is the "6X" rule of thumb. If "6X" is just guesswork, then Nitrogen retention might be problematic on Mars.

conclusion

Atomic and molecular hydrogen reach either double or triple the needed velocity to escape Mars. They will leave "quickly", so it's important that hydrogen is always bound together in heavier molecules or is replenished regularly. Of course, there is the ongoing problem of natural geologic processes that will affect the air composition, but we'll assume that the terraforming plan takes them into account.

Future exercise: What is the rate of hydrogen loss on Mars? How much hydrogen and helium does our sun deposit on Mars via the solar wind? Would it offset the natural gravitational losses?


Disclaimer: I am not responsible for errors caused by variation in temperature due to global warming, solar nova, or universal collapse. The rest of it is definitely my fault though.



Sources:

"Universe", 6th ed, by Roger A Freedman and William J Kaufmann III, 2002, ISBN 0-7167-4647-6, for formulas and concepts

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Compositions/index.html, for standard atomic weights
mellowtigger: (astronomy)
A good song for ending this day.  Obama has only 257 days remaining to announce the extraterrestrial inhabitants already on our planet.  (Everything that I read on the internet is always true, of course.)

I watched the movie "Contact" for the umpteenth time tonight.  I still like it a lot, as much as I liked Carl Sagan's book.  Few movies accomplish that feat.  I even liked it better than the new Doctor Who episode.  I was flipping channels to watch both, and I found myself pausing Doctor Who so I could spend more time watching Contact.  The television series is supposed to inspire hope and optimism, but I got more of that experience from the old movie tonight.  Here, that optimism spills over into this song too.  "We'd like to make a contact with you, baby."


The closing lyrics of the song:

Calling occupants
Calling occupants
Calling occupants of interplanetary, anti-adversary craft
We are your friends

Saturn's hexagonhexagonal fluid flowOn a related note, physicists have been able to produce hexagonal currents in a fluid.  (Image on the left.)  It has something to do with differential rotation, meaning that some parts spin faster than other parts.  Instead of the typical whirlpools that I'd expect to see, they managed to get hexagons.  The news article includes video footage of the effect which is also cool stuff.

This discovery is important, because it means that we don't need to invent hyperdimensional physics in order to explain the same effect on Saturn's north pole.  (Image on the right.)  There was already an alternative sonic explanation too.  The important thing, though, is that Occam's razor allows us to leave the pan-dimensional mice out of the explanation now.  We can recreate Saturn's hexagon in a lab, so it loses its mystique.

Score one point for the lonely sentients in the backwaters of this short galactic arm.

Profile

mellowtigger: (Default)
mellowtigger

About

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 345
678 9101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
Page generated 2025-Jul-13, Sunday 08:11 am