Tag: science

Posted in Science & Nature

Brocken Spectre

Posted on by Jinavie

There is a Scottish legend that speaks of a terrifying giant that lives atop Ben Macdui, the second highest peak in Britain. Am Fear Liath Mòr (Gaelic for “Big Grey Man”), is describes as a gigantic, dark figure with a fuzzy appearance. It is said to inspire a feeling of fear, eeriness and apprehension. It has been sighted by multiple lone climbers exploring the peaks of Ben Macdui.

Am Fear Liath Mòr has been classically described as a supernatural being, rather than a cryptid such as Bigfoot or the Yeti. However, there is an even more interesting and scientifically plausible explanation. Am Fear Liath Mòr is the climber themselves.

As poetic as this sounds – that you are confronted by a gigantic shadow of your inner self at the top of a misty mountain – it is a well-documented phenomenon known as a Brocken spectre.

This happens when the sun is at an angle, shining from behind the observer into mist or fog at the top of a peak. A shadow is cast and appears magnified because of the vast distance between the observer and the fog. Because the background is a fog with little feature, the observer loses their depth perception and see an ill-defined, massive being. The rippling of the water droplets, wind and the observer’s own movements all contribute to the shape appearing alive.

Furthermore, there are many factors that would cause the eeriness commonly reported by people who witness a Brocken spectre. Winds echoing through a pass tend to create very low-frequency sounds that cause uneasiness in people. There is likely a large psychological component as well, as the climbers tend to be alone in a dark mountain, while fatigued from their long climb.

Brocken spectres are a classical example of just how awe-inspiring natural phenomenon can be, especially after understanding the scientific principle behind them.

Posted in History & Literature

Night Vision

Posted on by Jinavie

During World War II, the British Royal Air Force boasted an impressive accuracy in intercepting Nazi German bombers despite the cover of darkness at night. The British air ministry reported that their fighter pilots ate a large amount of carrots to boost their night vision. Since then, it has become public knowledge that carrots help you see better in the dark.

Unfortunately, this is false. The British air force were not actually using carrots to help see better in the dark; they were using a revolutionary new technology called radar to spot enemy war planes from a far distance. The carrot propaganda was spread to hide this fact from the Germans.

The carrot myth sounds plausible as carrots contain a large amount of beta-carotene, which is converted into vitamin A in the body. Vitamin A is a key chemical required for vision, in the form of retinal. It is true that vitamin A deficiency can cause night blindness. However, the dose of vitamin A required to improve your night vision is so high that it cannot be achieved by simply eating a lot of carrots.

Posted in Science & Nature

Kessler Syndrome

Posted on by Jinavie

When we imagine catastrophes, we think of disasters involving mass destruction such as volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and nuclear war. But there are so many creative ways the future of humanity can go awry. For example, there exists a possibility of humanity losing the ability to launch anything into space for the foreseeable future.

This interesting hypothetical scenario was described by astrophysicist Donald J. Kessler in 1987. Earth is currently surrounded by many layers of orbiting satellites. Unfortunately, satellites eventually break down and its components can end up as space debris. Since there is nothing in the vacuum of space that will degrade them, space debris stay in an endless orbit around the Earth unless they fly low enough that they get caught by air resistance and burn up in the atmosphere.

Kessler proposed the following problem: what happens when debris collide and set off a chain reaction? Although we think of orbital objects as slow moving or even geostationary, orbital objects are travelling at extreme speeds – at least 8km/s (or 28,800km/hr). When two objects collide at such incredible speeds, there is a huge amount of energy released in the form of shrapnel.

If the orbit is dense enough with debris, it is theoretically possible that these shrapnel will hit another piece of debris and set off another reaction. If the chain reaction can sustain itself long enough, soon the entire orbit will be littered with high-speed shrapnel, obliterating any object trying to cross the orbital layer.

The implication of the Kessler syndrome is that it would essentially make it impossible for us to launch any new satellites or rockets into space. This would stop us from exploring the depths of space and dash any hopes of interstellar travel and space colonisation. Scientists are already working on policies to reduce further space debris and experiments on how to clear up debris. But without awareness of the issue, no change would happen.

With climate change becoming an increasingly pressing issue, it is ironic that our littering of space could potentially ruin our chances of escaping and finding a new home if the need should arise.

Posted in History & Literature

Factoid

Posted on by Jinavie

Factoids are commonly known as trivial tidbits of knowledge and fact. This is actually incorrect. Factoids actually mean pieces of false information that have circulated and become popular to the point that they are accepted as facts. This makes factoids ironic in the sense that the definition of a factoid itself, is a factoid.

Here are several examples of common factoids.

“Vikings wore horns on their helmets”. 

There is no evidence of this ever happening and all Viking helmets found in archaeology are hornless. It is likely a myth originating from dramatisation of the Vikings in opera.

“Medieval people thought the Earth was flat”.

It has been common knowledge that the Earth is spherical even since ancient Greek times. Greek astronomer Eratosthenes even calculated the Earth’s circumference to within 5-15% error margin of the actual circumference in 240BC.

“Napoleon Bonaparte was short”.

Napoleon’s height was recorded as 5 feet 2 inches, but this is in fact French feet. This converts to 5 feet 7 inches, which is taller than the average height for French males at the time.

“The low life expectancy in the Middle Ages meant people usually died around their 30’s”. 

The low life expectancy of the past was mostly due to the high infant mortality, meaning people who survived into adulthood lived much longer, fuller lives.

“You need to drink eight glasses of water to stay healthy”. 

There is no agreed upon amount of water a person should drink in medical literature. The current consensus is that drinking water when you feel thirsty is fully sufficient to avoid dehydration.

“Carrots help you see in the dark”.

Vitamin A is indeed used by the body to synthesise chemicals used in vision, but having more does not improve your vision. This was a myth propagated by Great Britain during World War 2 to mask the fact that they were using radar for accurate nighttime bombings.

“Evolution is a theory, meaning there is insufficient evidence to confirm it”. 

This is a complete misunderstanding shared by many people against evolution. The word “theory” in science means a concept or set of principles that best explains an observed phenomena, not a hunch as it is often used in common English. For example, gravity is a theory, as well as germ theory (that microorganisms cause infectious diseases).

“Chameleons can change the colour of their skin to match their surroundings”.

Chameleon’s skin colours change based on their mood, not the colour of their surroundings. Cuttlefish, on the other hand, can perfectly mimic and blend in to their surrounding environment.

“Adding oil when boiling pasta stops sticking”.

The oil floats to the top and does nothing to prevent sticking. Adding oil after draining the water will help.

“Searing meat seals in the juices”.

Searing can actually make meat drier on average. It does, however, add more flavour by adding a brown crust due to the Maillard reaction.

image
Posted in Science & Nature

Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword

Posted on by Jinavie

If an irresistible force was to act on an immovable object, what would happen?

A mathematician named Mike Alder decided to approach this philosophical paradox from a scientific perspective. He proposed a simple answer to the paradox – it is not worth discussing.

Alder argued that for an object to be immovable, all known forces must be acted upon it with no effect. Similarly, an irresistible force can only be called that if literally no object could ignore its effects. Therefore, the two cannot possibly exist in the same universe, meaning that the paradox is pointless. As Alder would put it – “Language is bigger than the universe”, as it allows us to formulate impossible scenarios that ignore the rules of science.

The implication of this line of thought is that if you cannot tangibly test an idea, then there is no point in arguing it as it would not add to scientific knowledge. This is a purist view of the fundamental principle of science that is falsifiability.

Sir Isaac Newton was one of the earliest pioneers of this philosophy. He wrote: “hypotheses non fingo”, or “I do not engage in untestable speculation”. Newton challenged the classical school of philosophy, where one would challenge and develop an idea through thought, discussion and argument. When faced with philosophical questions such as whether animals had rights, he would ask: “What set of observations do you consider would establish the truth of your claim?”.

Alder named his principle – that one should only discuss matters that can be tested and verified – Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword (as he believed all good principles should have sexy names). This is a play on Occam’s razor, the philosophical principle that once you shave away the complexities, the simplest truth remains. Alder believed that Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword was a much sharper and more dangerous tool than Occam’s Razor, meaning that as useful as it is, it should be used with care.

Of course, this is an extreme school of philosophy that is only upheld by a group of philosophers who we now call “scientists”. There are still many intangible issues that could only be solved through thinking, such as ethics. Thus, the battle between scientists and philosophers continue.

image
Posted in Psychology & Medicine

Rat Park

Posted on by Jinavie

In the mid-20th century, rat models were used by psychologists to study the science of drug addiction. Rats would be placed into cages, connected to a pump that would deliver a dose of morphine when a switch was pressed. These rats would press the switch to get more “hits”, with some rats pressing the button in preference to food and water, eventually dying from dehydration.

In the 1970’s, Professor Bruce Alexander questioned whether this was an accurate description of the nature of drug addiction in humans. He posited that given that rats are social animals, placing them in isolation would put them in an environment where the drugs were the only “escape”. To study this, his team designed a large enclosure that they nicknamed “Rat Park”.

image

Rat Park was designed to be a utopia for rats. It was 200 times the size of a standard cage, filled with comfortable cedar shaving floors, plenty of nesting areas, toys and abundant food. Most importantly, the enclosure had all 16 rats living in the same enclosure, so that they could interact with each other. The control group were placed individually in 16 separate isolated cages.

The researchers gave the rats a choice of two fluids to drink from – water and water laced with morphine. Although the rats initially stayed away from the morphine due to the bitterness, they eventually started drinking from it when they realised the euphoric sensation they got from drinking it. Interestingly, rats in cages would follow the traditionally predicted path of drinking more and more morphine, becoming addicted. However, rats living in Rat Park would barely touch the morphine water. Even when the morphine was sweetened with sugar, the rats would still not drink much of it.

image

Through rigorous experiments, the researchers deduced that the Rat Park residents preferred social interaction over the drug-induced haze from drinking morphine. Rats under the effects of morphine were less able to socialise and in an environment with adequate social stimulus, this was a good enough reason to avoid drugs.

In a different experiment, Professor Alexander’s team put rats already dependent on morphine into Rat Park. They found that despite withdrawal symptoms, rats would prefer staying away from morphine and would attempt to socialise.

Although it remains controversial, Alexander’s research into Rat Park offered new insights into the study of drug addiction. It raised the question of whether drug addiction was purely an issue of biochemistry and how much effect our social environment has on our life choices.

image
Posted in Science & Nature

Salt And Flavour

Posted on by Jinavie

A well-known cooking fact is that salt “brings out the flavour” of foods. This not only applies to meats and vegetables, but also unlikely foods and drinks such as brownies, watermelons, coffee and chocolate milk.

Salt (sodium chloride) will dissolve in water to form sodium and chloride ions. Sodium ions interfere with the way your taste buds sense flavour, suppressing bitterness. This is why adding a dash of salt to coffee and chocolate milk will make it taste fuller and smoother.

Furthermore, the sodium ions enhance flavour by making taste buds more sensitive for other flavours such as sweet, sour and umami (savoury). Lastly, in the case of chocolate milk, the slight salty taste gives a greater contrast for the sweet flavour, making the drink taste slightly sweeter.

Posted in History & Literature

Evolution Of Colour

Posted on by Jinavie

We often take the beauty of colour for granted. How would you explain the colour red to a blind person? With that in mind, how do we know that the colour we see with our own eyes is the same hue that others see? A scholar by the name of William Gladstone came across a similar question in 1858 while studying ancient Greek literature. He noticed that in most literature of ancient times, the description of colour was wildly inconsistent, such as the sea being described as “wine-dark”, the sky being “copper-coloured” and other oddities such as violet sheep and green honey. After further analysis, Gladstone found that white and black were referenced frequently, while other colours were much rarer, with red, yellow and green being the most common colours respectively.

Another scholar named Lazarus Geiger expanded on Gladstone’s research and found that throughout ancient literature – including the Bible, Hindu poems, ancient Chinese stories and Norse tales – described beautiful scenes while omitting a certain detail: a blue sky. It appeared that the colour “blue” did not appear in most languages until a certain point in time, despite the people having lived under the same blue sky that we do now.

Geiger tracked the appearance of different colours in different languages and found a pattern of development. Each language would typically describe white (light) and black (dark) first. The next colour to develop was red, then yellow and green, with blue being one of the last colours to appear. This is likely related to the abundance of each colour (e.g. blood, dirt, vegetation) and the ease of making coloured dye (blue dye is notoriously difficult to make).

This raises an interesting question: if the ancient Greeks did not have a word for the colour blue, could they still perceive the colour blue? Biologically speaking, our eyes are not so different to that of the ancient Greeks. But of course vision is a two-part process – your eye captures the image and then your brain processes the image. Does language have a significant enough impact on how we perceive our world?

image

There is a tribe in Namibia whose language does not distinguish blue and green. A study was held where people from this tribe were shown a circle of 12 squares – 11 green and 1 blue. To the researcher’s intrigue, the men and women of the Himba tribe could not tell which square was the odd one out – suggesting that their brain was processing the two colours as identical. However, the Himba language has more words distinguishing shades of green than English. In another study involving a circle of green squares with one square being a slightly different shade of green, the Himba tribe could pick out the different square much more easily than English-speakers.

The so-called “colour debate” is a hotly debated topic, with some arguing that language plays a crucial role in determining our perception of the world, while others state that language is separate to our senses. What did the ancient Greeks see when they gazed up into the sky? If we cannot describe something with words, then does it truly exist? But one thing is clear – things are not always as they seem.

image
Posted in Science & Nature

Fusion

Posted on by Jinavie

One of the greatest challenges for modern science is unlocking the secret of nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion presents the opportunity for humanity to obtain an extremely efficient yet surprisingly clean source of energy. Einstein’s famous equation – E=mc² – shows the relationship between energy and mass. It turns out that all matter is essentially energy, meaning that by breaking apart the matter to its basic constituents, you can unleash energy.

When two hydrogen atoms are collided together at extremely high speeds, the two protons join with enough energy to form deuterium, while releasing energy. As more hydrogens are collided, helium is formed while releasing more energy and also hydrogen, which can fuse with other hydrogen to start more reactions. This is a chain reaction. Once the chain reaction is established, the fusion reaction will keep producing immense amounts of energy until it uses up all the hydrogen available.

However, there are two main problems we are still trying to solve when it comes to unlocking fusion. The first is generating enough energy to kickstart the chain reaction in the first place, which is called ignition. The second is containing this immense energy, as the intense heat produced would melt any material we can produce to contain it.

This brief overview of nuclear fusion also offers a lesson in life. Most of the good things in life are not single events, but self-sustaining processes. Things like good habits, happiness and human relationships. To form a good habit, you must invest incredible amounts of time, resources and willpower. To start a relationship, you need to make an effort to show the other person how much they mean to you. To be happy, you need to completely change the way you perceive the world.

The best things in life do not happen by accident, but because you made an effort to ignite the chain reactions. Of course, you will constantly need to maintain those reactions so they don’t explode on you, but at the end of the day, starting is really half the battle.

(Couldn’t come up with an appropriate picture for this article……..so here’s a gif of Groot dancing)

Posted in Science & Nature

Zero Gravity

Posted on by Jinavie

With the development of technology, we are now at a point in history where there is an abundance of video footages taken in space. Thanks to this, the general population can visualise the strange phenomenon that is the lack of gravity in space. We are able to see videos of objects and astronauts gently floating and even strange phenomena such as tears simply pooling around a person’s eyes rather than streaming down the face. Most of these scenes are from places such as the International Space Station which is in orbit around the Earth, as there has been no expeditions leaving Earth’s orbit since the last moon landing in 1972.

image

However, the common misconception is that objects in space stations are in zero gravity conditions. Objects in orbit are still under the influence of Earth’s gravity, which is why they do not fling out into the depths of space. So why do astronauts in space stations look like they are not under the influence of gravity? The reason is that an object in orbit is travelling incredibly fast.

The International Space Station is about 420km above the surface of the Earth. Here, it experiences about 90% of Earth’s surface gravity, meaning that theoretically, it should fall straight back. However, the ISS is travelling at 8km/s (27600km/h) sideways at the same time – the orbital speed. Because of this, the ISS is falling back to Earth at the same rate as it is travelling tangentially away from Earth. This makes it travel at a blistering speed in a circle around the Earth.

Not only is the ISS free-falling around the Earth, but so is its contents. Therefore, the astronauts inside look like they are in zero gravity, but are in fact simply in free-fall, much like a skydiver. In this state, they experience no “weight” as the g-force becomes zero and the astronauts accelerate at the same rate as the ISS. Ergo, the astronauts are “weightless”, not in “zero gravity”. This condition can be simulated on Earth in the so-called “Vomit Comet” – an airplane designed to fly up and down along a certain path, to produce a weightless, free-fall when it falls.

image