PDA

View Full Version : energy and life on earth



Silvercord
01-19-2003, 01:32 AM
What do you think will happen when the fossil fuels are all burned up? I think nuclear energy will be more utilized (sp?). as it is we have breeder reactors which synthesize potent radioactive isotopes as a by product (but breeder reactors were banned because it was thought bad guys would be able to get their hands on nuclear reactive materials too easily). we also have utilized fusion reactors (forcing hydrogen atoms together and using magnets to keep the heat away from the container, there's a fusion reactor in topomak or someplace like that) but we don't gain energy profit from that. anyway if we can successfully utilized nuclear energy from its fully potential, do you think humans will be able to survive without the sun? (assuming of course we are able to use at least some of the energy to blast away to other planets and find more reactable materials to continue getting energy). I think that humans will be able to survive without the sun if we don't get killed when it eats up the earth.

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 04:47 AM
>>> there's a fusion reactor in topomak or someplace like that

"Tokamak" is the technology behind many of the worlds experimental fusion reactors. The JET reactor has produced more energy than it consumes in recent times. I believe it is only a matter of time before we have a reliable fusion generation capability. There is a load of stuff about JET and fusion here...

http://www.jet.efda.org/

>>> if we don't get killed when it eats up the earth.

Few years to go before that happens.

face_master
01-19-2003, 04:50 AM
yeah, like 16 years.

Jeremy G
01-19-2003, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by face_master
yeah, like 16 years.

fool-ishness.

Sorry, but the son has a long life to live yet.

minesweeper
01-19-2003, 05:28 AM
>>do you think humans will be able to survive without the sun?<<

No. And it's got nothing to do with nuclear power. The sun provides energy for plants and trees via photosynthesis right down at the bottom of the food chain. If that disappears then everything dies.

RoD
01-19-2003, 07:34 AM
The dark winter we would experience of the sun died is un-imaginable and surely not survivable(sp).

As far as n-energy, i don't worry about that at the moment, but rather the n-energy thats bound to be flying over our heads soon enough, in missle form...

Silvercord
01-19-2003, 07:47 AM
Cool site Adrian, thanks. Seriously though that thing just looks really cool if anything else.




No. And it's got nothing to do with nuclear power. The sun provides energy for plants and trees via photosynthesis right down at the bottom of the food chain. If that disappears then everything dies.


I guess I can't really make a great argument here, but I'm going to try anyway. The sun is a big ball of hydrogen and helium constantly undergoing reactions and releasing energy in the form of light in the process. The light waves travel to earth, plants absorb it and use it to undergo photosynthesis.

Now my idea I'm about to say is going to sound pretty weird but here it goes: we could just take a bunch of fusionable material such as hydrogen, put it in a big thing in space and have react it so it will kind of act as a fake sun. There would be no particles flying around (because it would be a fusion reaction instead of a fission reaction) therefore the particles would be less likely to fly around breaking the container. We are already adapting some kind of technology to sustain fusion reactions, now we would only have to have a container that lets light pass through it viola we have a fake sun. This system could even end up being better because we could put a few of these fake suns around the earth so we can get tans from all directions!

I just thought of something, though, we would actually have to escape the Earth expanding and eating up the earth somehow. Wouldn't it turn into a black hole too? :(

EDIT: Don't you guys think it's cool that all of the energy of the UNIVERSE is innately stored in the charges of subatomic partcles? This is like the coolest thing!!! What's the hottest burning fuel you can legally buy btw?

RoD
01-19-2003, 07:52 AM
>>EDIT: Don't you guys think it's cool that all of the energy of the UNIVERSE is innately stored in the charges of subatomic partcles? This is like the coolest thing!!! What's the hottest burning fuel you can legally buy btw?


In the U.S i THINK that would be nitromathane(sp), used in funny cars and such. I run Aviation fuel in my four wheelers but thats not nearly as potent.

Silvercord
01-19-2003, 08:13 AM
In the U.S i THINK that would be nitromathane(sp), used in funny cars and such. I run Aviation fuel in my four wheelers but thats not nearly as potent.


lmao I want to try that in my atv! What do you have for a 4 wheeler? I've got an artctic cat 300 4x, it's a 1999 I believe and it has about 1,000 miles. You can legally (and safely) run aviation grade fuel in domestic vehicles? Thats cool!

Travis Dane
01-19-2003, 08:16 AM
By the time whe've exausted our feuls at earth, whe'll be able to
colonize other planets and harvest them.

As for the sun, it'll stay around for the next million years?

RoD
01-19-2003, 08:19 AM
>>As for the sun, it'll stay around for the next million years?


I think so, as long as its around while i'm alive i can deal...

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 08:20 AM
>>> Wouldn't it turn into a black hole too?

A typical main sequence star like the sun does not have enough mass to become a black hole. As the suns Hydrogen fuel becomes used up, a number of other fusion reactions start. Fusion of nuclei up to atomic number 26, (Iron), are exothermic, i.e. they give out energy. Reactions with heavier nuclei absorb energy to make them go. The sun will evolve into a red giant, it's mass does not increase, but it's diameter will, and yes, in all probablility, it will engulf the Earth. As the fusion reactions finally wear out, the sun will shed it's outer layers forming a planetary nebula, the centre collapses and will become a white dwarf, which over a long period will eventually cool to become a dead, black dwarf.

Here is a picture of a planetary nebula - that site is well worth browsing if you like astronomical pictures.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990321.html

face_master
01-19-2003, 09:34 AM
>> What's the hottest burning fuel you can legally buy btw?

I dont know but the most flamable substance is liquid cement. But I like shellite. That stuff is so cool. Booya!

RoD
01-19-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Silvercord
lmao I want to try that in my atv! What do you have for a 4 wheeler? I've got an artctic cat 300 4x, it's a 1999 I believe and it has about 1,000 miles. You can legally (and safely) run aviation grade fuel in domestic vehicles? Thats cool!

I have several, actually. My two race bikes:

1999 Yamaha Blaster
2001 Yamaha Banshee

My jumping/freestyle bike:

2000 Honda 400EX


You can run aviation fuel in them, but it requires a few modifications. The oil injection has to go, as you can't trust it. Better pistons/rings, new carb jets, better air cleaner, etc.

Avi fuel here is about 20.00 a gallon and my race bikes, on average, run about 20 or 30 gallons of gas in a race, its not cheap. Its a huge payoff when your topend on a 55mph bike (stock blaster is 55mph) is now 125MPH without maxing it out.

I have alot of money and time into my bikes, its not like i just dumped avi in. You can, but you'll wreck your engine.

Silvercord
01-19-2003, 11:03 AM
I have several, actually. My two race bikes:

1999 Yamaha Blaster
2001 Yamaha Banshee

My jumping/freestyle bike:

2000 Honda 400EX


you suck, lol! Seriously though, those are cool machines



Here is a picture of a planetary nebula - that site is well worth browsing if you like astronomical pictures.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990321.html


whooooooa, that's pretty cool stuff!

I don't see how the sun can stay reacting for so many years, it's mind boggling how much 'stuff' is there to continue the reactions. I still like my fake sun idea :) Maybe we could even move to pluto or mars or some other solar system using nuclear energy to keep us alive, and make bread!

Eibro
01-19-2003, 11:11 AM
I've read that long before the sun expands to a red giant and dies, earth will be much too hot to be inhabited. Mars will occupy the happy zone where it's not too cold; nor too warm.

Silvercord
01-19-2003, 12:14 PM
I've read that long before the sun expands to a red giant and dies, earth will be much too hot to be inhabited. Mars will occupy the happy zone where it's not too cold; nor too warm.


lol the happy zone, ahahahaha, that's cool

Ok so there exist all of these subatomic particles, most importantly neutrons and protons (nuclear binding energy acts on these in the nucleus, that's why isotopes with higher neutron count are unstable and fissionable) and then there are electrons, and the charges of all of these particles results in all of the energy that we know of, whether it be mechanical energy in cars, food energy, bomb energy, etc, etc. The really mind boggling quesion is what happen in order for them to get their charges (i guess this ist he 'big bang' theory). And also what is energy. I mean yes, I know it means the ability to do work, but what is it. What, exactly, when you get right down to it, gives these subatomic particles their charges (yes I know it has to do with quarks or something and 1 up vs 2 down in a subatomic particle)

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 12:21 PM
>>> And also what is energy.

Energy is everything. In simplistic terms, matter can be thought of as "frozen" energy. Matter and energy are equivalent, in it's simplest form, e=mc^2. ( energy = mass times the speed of light squared).

>>> neutrons and protons

Neutrons and protons are but two of the extended family of particles known as Hadrons. All hadrons are made of three quarks, i.e. they are not indivsable.

*** EDIT ***

It would seem you were editing your post when I entered mine - quarks, exactly. There are six types, (could be more but current theory doesn't suggest that), Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Bottom and Top. Some people call Top and Bottom quarks Truth and Beauty quarks.

Silvercord
01-19-2003, 12:40 PM
I was reading a thing that they've been tryign to detect the top(?) quark or something for a very long time, that they were doing atom smashers and trying to detect the electronic signal of it just to make sure it exists. I read the deviced used to detect the electronic signal was as huge as an entire building, and that it was so sensitive that surrounding sounds could disrupt the accuracy and precision of the device.

this is cool stuff

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 02:02 PM
I wonder if the stuff you're reading is out of date. The Top quark was positively confirmed back in 1994!

If you're interested in this kind of thing, check out the websites of CERN...

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/

...and Fermilab...

http://www.fnal.gov/

... amongst others.

As for size, the LHC machine being built at CERN is so big that some of the construction sites are in different towns!

I'm a European, but even so, I would have to say the Tevatron at Fermilab is also one hell of a machine. As is the linear at Stanford.

Procyon
01-19-2003, 03:31 PM
The depletion of hydrogen in the Sun's core causes its luminosity to increase somewhat, especially as it gets very low. In 1-2 billion years this process will become significant enough to increase Earth's temperature to instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, causing the oceans to boil away and making Earth uninhabitable except for by extremophilic single-celled organisms. Earth will look a lot like Venus.

Of course, if what you're interested in is the survival of intelligent life, they could always just put a large number of solar shields in Earth's orbit to counteract this effect. Of course, though, when hydrogen is depleted totally (about 4 billion years) in the core the Sun will expand into a red giant and probably engulf Earth, which is pretty unavoidable.

If Earth were separated from the Sun, perhaps by a chance encounter with a rogue star passing through the solar system, it would probably lead to the extermination of all life except maybe single-celled organisms recieving energy from hydrothermal vents. Earth would look much like Europa in this scenario. Intelligent life could similarly extract power by geothermal means, use nuclear energy, or just find another star. The universe will contain stars for at least another trillion years.

Sebastiani
01-19-2003, 03:41 PM
I think water as a source of hydrogen and oxygen will be the the future for ordinary energy needs, fusion for large scale supply.

BTW: Splitting a neutron yeilds 1 proton, 1 electron, and a photon. Therefore there are only 2 "true" atomic particles.

codingmaster
01-19-2003, 03:43 PM
There will be always a solution

I HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 03:47 PM
>>>
BTW: Splitting a neutron yeilds 1 proton, 1 electron, and a photon. Therefore there are only 2 "true" atomic particles.
<<<

Sorry man, but that is just too simplistic. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks, there are at least 6 types of quark.

Sebastiani
01-19-2003, 04:07 PM
I disagree. Here are some basic facts about this particle:

- The neutron is about 0.1% more massive than a proton.
- A neutron cannot exist outside of a neucleus for much longer than ten minutes before sponteaneous disintegration occurs.
- The disintegration always yeilds 1 proton, 1 electron, and (whoops) a neutrino.

Sources:

Neutrons - Dr. Donald J. Hughes /Brookhaven Ntl Labrotories
Nuclear Physics - Dr. David Halliday / University of Pittsburgh

I'm not saying that there's not more to the story, you're right, there is. But I think the evidence is there proving the *essential* composition of the neutron.

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 04:23 PM
>>>
BTW: Splitting a neutron yeilds 1 proton, 1 electron, and a photon. Therefore there are only 2 "true" atomic particles
<<<

An atom consist of, (at least one), proton/s, neutrons and electrons. Hadrons and Leptons. We are not talking about atoms now, nucleons. Protons and neutrons are hadrons, and as such, consist of three quarks.

>>> is there proving the *essential* composition of the neutron.

I don't know what it is you are saying with that statement. The composition of a neutron, given the quark components is inevitable. What is *essential* about a neutorn?

Sebastiani
01-19-2003, 04:50 PM
>>An atom consist of, (at least one), proton/s, neutrons and electrons. Hadrons and Leptons.

Ahh, yes, but take hydrogen for example. One electron, one proton (ignoring deuterium/tritium, of course). :)

I know what your saying. But think about it.

-The neutronic hadron ultimately disintigrates into the protonic hadron(+more).

Protons don't split into neutrons.

-The neutron is unstable.

Protons are not.

>>The composition of a neutron, given the quark components is inevitable. What is *essential* about a neutorn?

What is so fundamental about a quark? What of it's own sub-particles? And theirs? I think that it is reasonable to say that hadronic and leptonic particles are fundamental in their own right, but given the facts, the proton just seems "more" fundamental to me.

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 05:10 PM
>>> Alas I think we have a different perspective.

Ah, true.

>>>
-The neutron is unstable.

Protons are not.
<<<

... now there you go... protons will ultimately decay...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

... a simplistic explanation, but enough.

>>> What is so fundamental about a quark?

Nothing yet.

>>>
reasonable to say that hadronic and leptonic particles are fundamental in their own right,
<<<

So define your "fundemental", how can something known to consist of something else, (quarks) , be fundemental?

Sebastiani
01-19-2003, 05:28 PM
>>>So define your "fundemental", how can something known to consist of something else, (quarks) , be fundemental?


Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. A dog is a fundamental type of creature. Yet "fundamentally" it is made of individual cells. This doesn't mean a dog is not fundamental.


>> ... now there you go... protons will ultimately decay...


10^32 years is "fairly" stable, Adrian. :D


Thanks for the link, BTW, nice quick expo of the quark composition of protons/neutrons.

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 05:41 PM
>>> 10^32 years is "fairly" stable, Adrian.

Everything is relative.

Procyon
01-19-2003, 05:42 PM
When the neutron was first proposed it was theorized to be composed of a proton and an electron in close orbit. However, this has been rejected because

(1) The neutron, proton, and electron all have spin 1/2. If the neutron were composed of a proton and electron it would have to have a spin of 1 or 0.

(2) The neutron's magnetic moment is two thousand times less than the magnetic moment of the electron. If the neutron contained an electron it would have a magnetic moment of the same order of magnitude as the electron.

(3) The kinetic energy of electrons released in beta decay is far less than they would be if they were actually bound in stable configurations inside the nucleus.

valar_king
01-19-2003, 06:04 PM
EDIT: Don't you guys think it's cool that all of the energy of the UNIVERSE is innately stored in the charges of subatomic partcles? This is like the coolest thing!!! What's the hottest burning fuel you can legally buy btw?

I believe you can make napalm by mixing gasoline and soap and putting the gas container in steaming hot bathwater.
Don't try it.

Sebastiani
01-19-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Procyon
When the neutron was first proposed it was theorized to be composed of a proton and an electron in close orbit. However, this has been rejected because

(1) The neutron, proton, and electron all have spin 1/2. If the neutron were composed of a proton and electron it would have to have a spin of 1 or 0.

(2) The neutron's magnetic moment is two thousand times less than the magnetic moment of the electron. If the neutron contained an electron it would have a magnetic moment of the same order of magnitude as the electron.

(3) The kinetic energy of electrons released in beta decay is far less than they would be if they were actually bound in stable configurations inside the nucleus.



Actually, even the article Adrian posted points to the fact that it does decay as I proposed. They referred to it as the "decay of a down quark in a neutron".

The only thing that has changed is the granularity of our viewing window. The fact remains.

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 07:04 PM
>>> The fact remains

Which one?

Sebastiani
01-19-2003, 07:33 PM
...that the neutron is functionally composed of the proton/electron/neutrino. It is not a theory. It has been experimentally proven.

adrianxw
01-19-2003, 07:53 PM
...oh, but that is kind of like saying a white beam is "functionally" composed of a red, green, and blue. it's late, but...

>>> proton/electron/neutrino

... so we are saying a neutron's primary decay route is a proton, an electron, and a neutrino to carry off the "leptoness".

Problem?

Sebastiani
01-19-2003, 08:12 PM
>> ...oh, but that is kind of like saying a white beam is "functionally" composed of a red, green, and blue. it's late, but...

Sure.

>> ... so we are saying a neutron's primary decay route is a proton, an electron, and a neutrino to carry off the "leptoness".


I would say that a neutron is both leptonic and haptonic in nature. I don't see the flaw in my logic.

- The proton/electron are equal opposite charges. That make the neutron a perfect candidate as their merged state.

- The additions of the mass of an electron with a proton pretty much yeilds the mass of a neutron.

- The disintegration thereof yeilds both proton and electron.


I think it matters little how you phrase it, though. In my mind, the two views are not contradictory...

Procyon
01-19-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Sebastiani
Actually, even the article Adrian posted points to the fact that it does decay as I proposed. They referred to it as the "decay of a down quark in a neutron".I don't see why that's relevant. The evidence I described clearly demonstrates he neutron does not contain anything that remotely resembles a proton and an electron. The fact that it can decay to a proton and an electron isn't really relevant: carbon-14 decays to nitrogen-14 and an electron, but this certainly doesn't mean that carbon is "composed" of nitrogen.

Sebastiani
01-19-2003, 11:07 PM
>>> I don't see why that's relevant. The evidence I described clearly demonstrates he neutron does not contain anything that remotely resembles a proton and an electron.

Really?



When a neutrino interacts with a neutron, a W- can be exchanged, transforming the neutron into a proton and the neutrino into an electron.


How much more clear can that be?

Perhaps there are unforseen factors which dictate the strange spin identities of the three particles, and factors which also account for the magnetic moment problem, I don't know to be honest what they may be. The point is, add something to a proton, and you will get a neutron, and vice versa. Simple enough.

I guess it really just boils down to " what does it truly mean 'to contain' 'to be composed of' vs. 'to decay into' ''. Those dualities are really because of the ambiguities of the human mind. Half-empty or half-full sorts of arguments...we will just disagree ad infinitum.

adrianxw
01-20-2003, 03:38 AM
>>> we will just disagree ad infinitum.

Fair enough, although I am with Procyon on this one.

Procyon
01-20-2003, 11:39 AM
In common usage "contains" means that an object's components retain the characteristic properties they exhibit outside the system. Whatever composes a neutron does not have the characteristic properties of protons and electrons (spin, magetic moment, etc.) so to describe the neutron as "containing" a proton and electron is misleading.

If you want to define "contains" as synonymous with "decays into" or "can be made from", no one's going to stop you, but that's very nonstandard.