22 January 2014

This film starts with an image of a betrothed woman who cheats on her soldier with another. It is assumed that this very woman turns into the bed-ridden old grandma. Her daughter takes care of her and has had two daughters from two happy marriages. She also takes on a third suitor during the film. According to Nina (the daughter) the only unhappiness in her own marriages was her mother. This is the only explanation we get as to why the marriages ended. Her oldest daughter, Lida, turns out to be a mistress like her grandmother had been. The youngest daughter, Nastia, is pregnant and the father loves her and is willing to be with her and the baby. These are the women that live in the house.

Every day, as they get ready, there hangs a poster of Adam and Eve on their bathroom door. The poster seems to say: for every man, there is a perfect woman who suits him so well, it is almost as if he made her from a part of himself. The message of the movie, though, is something completely different. It seems to say that there is no one man for every woman or vise versa. The grandmother is the first example. She looked so happy getting married, yet she looked just as happy with her lover. Next, we have Nina. The men that fathered her children are perfectly good men which love their daughters as well as Nina, still, even though they are separated. She also falls easily into a romance with a new man. Again, we see that there could have been any number of men Nina could have settled down with. Lida is another example with her affair. Nastia also shows an unconventional pairing.

The director seems to tell us that there is no one perfect man. There are choices. However, the director does seem to say that if we do not choose one and take advantages of this knowledge that there are choices, we (women) will live a miserable life, as exemplified by the grandma.

They treat the grandma like a child. From the way Nina speaks to her to the television program she watches to changing her diapers, she is one pouty child. At one point, Nina gets frustrated with her and accuses her of acting. Then, at the end of the film, the old and supposedly paralyzed lady gets up out of bed and the film abruptly ends after showing the shocked and somewhat angry faces of her caretakers.

The grandmother was probably the biggest symbol in the film. Of what, though? I am not sure. Wether I feel sorry for her or am angry with her, it is hard to say. Maybe by getting up, she symbolizes the breaking of this cycle the women seem to follow in the house. The movie is left wide open for interpretation. Though maybe too open to grasp what was going on the mind of the director.

21 January 2014

Why is it that we relate to Gala?After all, she leaves behind her “family” and a man who “loves” her for the superficial pursuit of success in the glam world. We should actually dislike her. However, if we look closer, we see that there is no real love for her in Rosov. Plus, she tries to leave her parents money and with a goodbye to her boyfriend: all good intentions.

Despite her bad childhood, though, she is determined and always has a smile on her face. In the dirty world of behind the scenes glam, she manages to stay clean. When her boyfriend propagates her success, she is not pleased to have gotten ahead, but rather upset that it went against her morals. She says that she is willing to do anything to get to the top, but we see that Gala has a strong moral compass. She will work hard but is not quite willing to give up her dignity.

Another example of this is toward the end of the film with Misha. Gala becomes unhinged after sleeping with him. With Misha, she has everything that she has ever dreamed of in front of her. Or, that is, everything we thought she wanted. WHen she tells MIchael that she will not marry him, we see that what she actually values is happiness. SHe merely thought that a glamorous life meant happiness because that is exactly what all the glossy magazines portrayed.

With this, the director Andron Konchalovsky is trying to say that this modern portrayal of happiness is false and that deep down the modern Russians cannot possibly value these things. Though Gala is not the only character to realize the same thing, too late. The editor of the glossy magazine pretends to take on these values, but we see they are not really what she believes. Her daughter, having grown up with these values, turns into a heartless monster. Her mother cannot even be mad, knowing it is her own fault. Finally, the fashion designer is out last example. He goes against what is true to himself just  to make sales. His show was  hit, though the only thing that made it popular was its equivalence to a circus. The designer lost his dignity trying to uphold these modern values. All three characters did: the editor, the designer and especially Gala.

At the end of the film ,Gala’s old boyfriend shoots her dead. Although the ending does not clearly confirm this, I believe it to be true. She waves goodbye to her childhood, finally free of the haunting memories. THen, she imagines a glamorous and happy life with Michael. In this life, he is a man capable of love and the glossy world has a heart, painting the covers of the magazines with Gala’s face, a beauty on the inside, shredding all the previous fashions to bits. THough at the very end of this montage, we see the magazine with her on the cover in the shred pile.

Andron leaves us with this final message: Not even in your dreams will this glossy lifestyle bring you happiness. We are left pitying the victims of this new ideal, no matte how selfish each of them may have been.

A Final Essay in our First Year Experience course at CC: Life in the Universe

Research and speculation on an Earth-like exoplanet: Kepler-62e

Click the link, below:

—> Kepler 62 e Final Paper <—

Credit: NASA

We all should be farmiliar with the H-R Diagram:

The diagram may look complicated but is actually a very nifty representaion of data about stars. Going left to right, along the x-axis, the temperature decreases. Going up the y-axis, the luminosity increases. There also happens to be a correleation with mass, as it too decreaes with the temperature along the x-axis. We then have our outliers; The giants having similar mass and temperature as thier main sequence counterparts, yet higher luminosity and the white dwards being just as hot yet far less luminous and less massive, as well.

Along the main sequence, we have stars as they are born, then the outliers are the later stages of these stars.

Below, I have a composed a similar diagram, though with different circumstances. It initialy plosts education vs. income though has other correlations tied to it, as well as some interesting outliers.

Along the x-axis we have education level, decreasing as you go right. Along the y-axis we have, on a logarithmic scale, weekly income in U.S dollars increasing upwards. The main sequence is the data plotted in blue. We can see a pretty clear trend, where a higher education level correlates with a higher income. It also happens that as we go down the main sequence (from top left to bottom right) unemployment increases.

So the gist of the matter can be summarized pretty simply: the better the education, the better the income. Following the main sequence, upward, seems like the best bet. Though what about the outliers? Looking at the outliers, we can see that higher education is not the only way to raise income. We can also see that a higher education doesn’t necessarily mean higher wages.

So, what are the other factors that affect income? Let us draw attention to the first outlier, Elon Musk. Musk only completed a bachelor of arts degree yet makes over a million dollars, per year. He is y a genious and it is his inherant intelligence that has raised his income so much. So even though Elon is far off the main sequence, we can still conclude that education (if you want to use intelligence and education interchangably) leads to higher income. So Elon is off the main sequence, yet follows the trend. What about the other outlier?

In the other case, we see that even with a PhD, a small outcome is a possibility. In the cases of little experience and even the type of degree, you could result with a low income, even with the highest education possible. So does this outlier follow the trend despite being off the main sequence, like Elon? There are arguments both ways.

In favor of this outlier following the trend, we could say that those degrees that are less favorable require less intelligence to obtain. We can also say that an individual’s choice to forgo extra experience during the summer, etc. is a sign of lower intelligence, as well. Maybe, even, as one goes along the main sequence, they dip down a few times before coming back up, all depending on experience.

Either way, this diagram gives us insight into the population we are observing. Since the statistics for this diagram were provided mostly by the United States Beura of Labor Statistic, we can say that Americans tend to value a higher education, financially, and higher intellignece in general corrolates with higher income.

—

Data for the A-D Diagram provided by:

“Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 22 May 2013. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 19 Oct. 2013 <http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_001.htm&gt;.

“Compensation Information for Elon Musk , Chief Executive Officer, Product Architect and Chairman of TESLA MOTORS INC | Salary.com.” Salary.com. 19 Oct. 2013 <http://www1.salary.com/Elon-Musk-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-TESLA-MOTORS-INC.html&gt;.

Sauro, Jeff. “How much is a PhD Worth?” : Measuring Usability. 5 Nov. 2009. 19 Oct. 2013 <http://www.measuringusability.com/usability-phd.php&gt;.

A train of thought led by the following articles:

http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/collapsing-4-d-star-could-have-spawned-universe/

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-goodbye-big-black-hole-theory.html

What you are looking at is a four-dimensional black hole, theorized for a decade or so now (although just recently gaining popularity) to be the origin of our universe.

Now I know what you may be thinking: Who? What? When? Where? How?

To understand this creation theory, we must first take a look at black holes in our own three dimensions we know and love:

The black holes formed from our three-dimensional stars are summed up nicely in the diagram, above. The area around a 3D black hole where the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light is the event horizon, a seemingly two-dimensional surface. Once past the even horizon, one must travel faster than the speed of light to escape. Since that is not possible, the boat in the diagram would fall infinitely towards a singularity (assuming it had magical powers that prevented it from being torn apart on its journey down).

Though is that singularity truly infinite? Or, as string theorists suggest, is this singularity in the shape of a loop, putting a limit to this infinity? A loop that may be a doorway to something else… A loop maintains our 2D image of the black hole.

The “loop” idea seems absurd though let us now picture a four-dimensional black hole (like in the first picture). If a 3D black hole has a seemingly 2D event horizon, then a 4D black hole should have a 3D event horizon.

What is the point?

The theory in question suggests that the expanding event horizon of a 4D black hole is our own expanding universe.

Where is the proof?

This theory accounts for something physicists have been trying to figure out for a while, now. The uniform temperature of the cosmos would take far longer to equalize than its existence. Therefore, a theory suggesting we are a product of a longer existing universe would give us the time needed for equalization to occur.

What is the proof against it?

A 4% calculation mismatch with some new data.

Proof? Ha! This is theoretical physics we’re talking about…

So along those lines, I will leave with the product of my imagination as a result from this soup of information:

—

Thinking of our own black holes as 2D representations in a 3D universe, perhaps our own black holes produce two-dimensional universes? Now imagine a five dimensional universe, where a star collapses and embeds a four-dimensional apparition. Why does it appear 4D? Simply because its “singularity” is a loophole to a four-dimensional universe. Now, within that 4D universe, there is a black hole that appears 3D. Again, because the singularity transports us to a 3D universe. We have arrived to our destination.

Pretty nifty idea, but are you saying you can only go down a dimension? Can you ever go up in dimensions?

There are two logical reasons why we should only be able to travel one way. One, being time. It is linear and as we know it does not travel backwards. Two, being the desire for all particles to enter the lowest possible energy state.

Okay, sure… but what about the exits? If black holes are these big obvious entrances to a “lower energy state” then where do they exit?

Let us recall that string theory suggests (as do many others) that particles pop into existence, seemingly our of nowhere, all the time (along with their counterparts). Though what is this nowhere? Well if we take the idea of a singularity inside a black hole… The singularity would approach zero so when particles come out, they look like they’re coming from zero (or nothing).

Wow, this is all starting to make sense….

Sense? Are you kidding? I am a freshman at a small liberal arts college, just gluing together pieces of assorted puzzles, making a slightly appealing picture out of the most appealing problem in human nature.

—

The most fun part of scifi is separating the sci from the fi. So, naturally, after watching Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity, featuring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, I feel the need to tear apart the plausible from the improbable, just as the shards of space debris tear apart the Hubble telescope in the opening scene…
Spoiler alert? Perhaps… Though it honestly doesn’t matter. The events of the film are almost non-importnat compared to how it makes you feel just sitting there, watching it.

The opening scene shows Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) fixing a piece of the Hubble Telescope and Clooney (does it really matter what his character’s name is?) plays the technician assisting her. The crew then receives a message that the Russians blew up their own satellite with a missile (the judgement of the Russians is an insulting inaccuracy in its own right). The debris then proceeded to gain on Hubble and obliterate the telescope, spaceship and (most of) the crew.

Impending Obliteration 1 of the Hubble Crew

Obliteration 2 of the International Space Station

There are a few things wrong with this scenario. First, The debris would most likely orbit closer to Earth than the other satellites because of its acceleration.  As the Russian satellite was impacted by the missile, its acceleration would have increased (f=ma), bringing it closer to Earth, where orbiting objects have a higher acceleration. We can see how this works in the following equation:

We can see that acceleration (a) and distance from earth (R) are inversely proportional, meaning that as acceleration increases, the radius decreases.

Basically, if the Hubble, International Space Station, and Chinese Space Station, as well as the debris were orbiting at the same altitude, they would be orbiting at the same speed, and would never meet each other.

Though to add insult to injury, satellites do not orbit Earth at the same speed, anyway. Therefore, even if the space debris was able to accelerate at the same altitude, it would not of hit Hubble and ISS and the Chinese Space Station.

While on the topic of orbitals, and how each satellite has its own, I would like to point out the scene where Clooney and Bullock fly from Hubble to ISS using a jet pack.:

The astronauts make their way from Hubble to ISS via jetpack.

This is one of the biggest inaccuracies. Sometimes spaceships do not even have enough fuel to escape Hubble’s orbit.  A mere jet pack would not get the job done.

Despite its loopholes, the movie wasn’t half bad. It was hard to see Clooney and Bullock as their characters, rather than simply Clooney and Bullock. Though their stardom outshines their characters, they did an excellent job conveying the emotions that made the movie so successful. The whole time, the audience is at the edge of their seats, from a nice mix of plot and character reaction.

The scientific inaccuracies can be overlooked when we realize the real story being conveyed: It is of a melancholy woman who, when put in the biggest survival situation of her life, learns to appreciate life and find the will to live, once again. We couldn’t get such a dramatic coming of age with real science, now could we?

This post is a response to a lecture on Large Land Conservation by Dr. Gary Tabor, veterinarian and environmentalist.

First, what is LLC?

Large Landscape Conservation is conserving environments on a, well, large-scale. More importantly, it is recognizing that eco systems are not static in their action nor in their location. Animals migrate all over the place and their habitat of choice is determined by the ever-changing climate and other environmental factors. Therefore, it is not enough to dedicate a chunk of land to these animals. They do not recognize political borders. Instead, they travel to the areas that suit them, best which again, are constantly changing.

So, what have we been doing?

As Dr. Tabor puts it, we have created, for these animal, an imaginary box. Though as he showed, the majority of the animals are not using this land, nor even the national wilderness.

The animals just follow their instincts in response to the changing environment, a change induced by humanity.

By cutting across the natural landscape with roads, fences and establishments, we limit the animals’ ability to migrate. We cut them off by cutting up the globe into chunks of preserve and ignoring the fact that these ecosystems are much more extensive than that. Most large land masses are interconnected and work as a whole.

How can we do it better?

The solutions proposed by Dr. Tabor are some pretty simple:

1) Recognize that everything is interconnected and take into consideration animal migration when building new developments, especially roads.

2) Expand our national preserves to encompass as much of the ecosystem, as possible.

3) Combine small-scale conservation efforts to focus on the bigger picture

4) Individual awareness. Individuals need to recognize that their “animal problems” are caused by them and so need to see what they can do to fix the problem (rather than just shooting all the “pests”). Individuals should also have a sense of caring for the world that sustains them and a sense of responsibility to take care of it.

5) Planet Doctors across all fields. This means that scholars from all fields (not just environmental science) have a duty to contribute to this effort.

How does it relate to terraforming Mars?

If it is possible to doctor Earth in small ways to make significant changes, could we not do this to, say, Mars? By understanding our own planet, we can work with it to get the outcomes we want. Though as we learned about our planet, we learned that we will soon (relatively, of course) be an unhabitable planet. As the sun brightens, we will experience a runaway greenhouse effect, just like Venus. It is probably about time to think how we will continue humanity as these change happen.

The idea of terraforming Mars has been around for quiet some time. As the habitable zone moves past Earth, it will start to encompass Mars. We already know so much about Mars, its atmosphere and its resources. Though we could use to learn a lot more before we start the move to another planet.

It may seem far-fetched or merely sci-fi day dreaming, but moving to Mars may be our only option once Earth starts to fade off towards the light. We can doctor our planet, all we want, but Earth is a hospice patient. It is ailed with a malignant fate. Not that we should not give the “patient” our best care before its inevitable end, but we should also probably start more seriously considering the birth of a new environment to call home.

We have all heard of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each touches a different part of the elephant and determines the whole animal to be made of the one part they felt. For example, the man who touched the tail decided the whole thing was a rope. The man who touched the ear claimed he was feeling a fan, etc.

Now, imagine us (theoretical physicists) as the blind men and the elephant to be the unified theory of everything.  As Einstein put it, “Nature only shows us the tail of the lion (or the elephant in our analogy). But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size.”

Though unlike the blind men in the elephant tale, physicists are starting to realize that the individual pieces of the lion they have each discovered are not the actual lion, itself. This realization has opened our eyes to the idea that we are all fish in a fish bowl, looking at it from a distorted perspective. Each perspective, not technically wrong, is just a piece of the puzzle…

It is actually the astounding physicist and futurist, Michio Kaku, who demonstrates to us the progress of physicists in M-theory through the analogy of the lion.

On his website, lies an informative article about M-theory and its implications:  http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=262

Michio describes M-theroy as follows:

“Think of the blind men on the trail of the lion. Hearing it race by, they chase after it and desperately grab onto its tail (a one-brane). Hanging onto the tail for dear life, they feel its one- dimensional form and loudly proclaim “It’s a string! It’s a string!” But then one blind man goes beyond the tail and grabs onto the ear of the lion. Feeling a two-dimensional surface (a membrane), the blind man proclaims, “No, it’s really a two-brane!” Then another blind man is able to grab onto the leg of the lion. Sensing a three-dimensional solid, he shouts, “No, you’re both wrong. It’s really a three-brane!” Actually, they are all right. Just as the tail, ear, and leg are different parts of the same lion, the string and various p- branes appear to be different limits of the same theory: M- theory.”

The reason we can tell that each of these theories is a piece of the larger puzzle is due to something called dualities. A duality is where one aspect of one theory overlays with another. For example, magnetism can be explained from both the perspective of quantum physics and relativity. This duality is described very well by the youtube channel, Veritasium:

This video has not much to do with M-theory, it simply shows a perspective-based duality. The bottom line is, perspective-based dualities are what comprise the entirety of M-theory.

So even though you may have no clue what strings, branes, or any of that junk may be (it is okay, I do not quiet get it, yet, either) you can now at least grasp how we can start to assemble a so-called Theory of Everything.

So I’ll be frank with you: there is no methane on Mars. Absolutely none. Zip. Zilch. 1.3 parts per billion, by volume (2)… nothing.

This is what the Curiosity rover recently discovered and NASA reported in September, this year (1).

Well, guess that means we hang up the lab coats and put away our sterile wrenches and find a new hobby for all the NASA nerds.

Yeah, right.

LIke any good scientists, we will not give up the search without at least three confirmations: the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter in 2016 and another Curiosity-type rover in 2020 will have to take a look, for themselves (2).

While we wait, here are some more reasons for us cosmic romantics to keep our hope in Martian life, well, alive:

1) Mars has a very low escape velocity so methane doesn’t stick around, too long. Just because there is no methane, now, doesn’t mean there wasn’t any before.

2) Underground pockets. If there is no methane in the atmosphere, perhaps it is in the underground pockets which we are hoping exist and which we are also hoping contain life. These pockets would allow for water in the liquid state, assuming the planet is still warm enough on the inside.

3) Pending…

So, it may not be so probable that life exists, or has existed on Mars, after all. Between the lack of atmosphere, frigid temperatures, and extremely varying axis, Mars may not be the most stable environment for the formation of life. Do not fret, though! We still have plenty of time (relatively) to think up some more questions before we attempt to send the first humans in 2023.

(1) http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/29/a-hardly-forbidden-planet/

(2) http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/curiosity-cant-kill-life-on-mars/article5182757.ece

(This post is in response to Discovery’s online article, “Does Alien Life Thrive in Venus’s Mysterious Clouds?” published 16 May 2013)

It has always been thought that to live in the clouds, we would have to work our way up. Life needs a solid surface to develop and evolve… or does it? Could it be possible for life to evolve in an atmosphere of a world that only offers its hospitality amongst the clouds? A world where the surface temperature is too hot, at a constant 880 degrees Farenheit (1), yet just 30 to 40 miles above the surface the temperature and pressure almost mimics that of Earth’s (2). I am, of course, talking about Earth’s “twisted sister,” Venus.

The Discovery article lists a few reasons to consider life on Venus:

1. Venus demonstrates Earth-like temperature and pressure in a certain part of the atmosphere, about 30 to 40 miles above its surface.

2. There are currently bacteria in Earth’s clouds and in highly acidic conditions on Earth, as well, making acid-loving bacteria in the clouds of Venus seem plausible.

3. Venus’s mysterious absorption of UV light along with other unidentified particles could be a result of speculated acid-loving cloud bacteria.

There is one more consideration, unmentioned, but worth examining:

Perhaps it is possible to use a gas medium rather than a liquid medium for the formation of life. It may not have the highest probability, yet look at the Sun: a perfect example of how a miniscule probability can show itself if presented with enough opportunities (I am speaking of the miniscule probability that Hydrogen should fuse into Helium, of course.). Biochemistry with gas may have a low probability, but just look at the abundance of gases on Venus; look at the opportunity.

There may not be mystical cities among the clouds of Venus, such as the ones we see in Star Wars and other works of science fiction, but perhaps the planet can at least sustain microbial life. If only Carl Sagan were still around to speculate with us…

(1) Bennete’s Life in the Universe Textbook, chapter 7

(2) http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/are-venus-clouds-a-haven-for-life-130516.htm