Adam Johnson

Professor Schaffer
Physics 1010
Star Identification

Alpha Centauri

Distance from Earth: 4.36 light years.

Our visible light of this star left the actual star around the year 2010.

Size (relative to the Sun): its actually a 3 star system: A, B, and Proxima, whose sizes
are 1.2, .8, and 0.2 times that of our Sun, respectively.

Luminosity (relative to the Sun): approximate sum total is 1.6 times greater.

Beta Centauri

Distance from Earth: 320-370 light years.

Our visible light of this star left the actual star around the year 1665.

Size (relative to the Sun): about 8 times greater (however, it is a 3 star system).

Luminosity (relative to the Sun): 41,000 times greater.

Mimosa

Distance from Earth: 350 light years.

Our visible light of this star left the actual star around the year 1665.

Size (relative to the Sun): 8.4 times greater.

Luminosity (relative to the Sun): 34,000 times greater.

Acrux

Distance from Earth: 321 light years

Our visible light of this star left the actual star around year 1694.

Size (relative to the Sun): the largest star in the system is about 14 times greater. The
smaller star is about 10 times greater than our Sun.

Luminosity (relative to the Sun): the two visually distinguishable stars are 25,000 and
16,000 greater than the Suns luminosity, respectively.

Coal Sack

Distance from Earth: approximately 600 light years (it overlaps with a second cloud
about 750 light years away).

Our visible light of this nebula left its site around our fifteenth century!

Size: It spans about 50 light years at its widest (large enough to see with the eye).

It has a dim glow about 0.1 that of its surroundings.

(Sessions, 2014)

Equation Analysis

E = mc2
Where,

E energy (variable)

m mass (variable)

c speed of light (constant)

There is a few things to note about the speed of light (c). First, it is a
conversion factor between the units of energy and mass. Secondly, the speed
of light is a huge quantity.
c2 = 8.987551787e16 m2/s2
Because c2 is such a large quantity and it is multiplied by a mass variable, (m),
it means even a small number plugged into (m) will result in a large
magnitude of energy. We can say that a small amount of mass can be
converted into a large amount of energy.

d = gt2/2
Regarding this equation lets consider the correctness of the following:

Heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects FALSE

Objects fall at the same speed (if no air resistance) and weight doesnt matter TRUE
We can see that distance (d) is only dependent on gravity (g), time squared
(t2), and a constant. So it is important to note that a weight variable is not

factored in to this equation. This means, to the contrary of intuition, that

weight does not relate to this matter.

V = gt
Lets again consider the following statements in terms of the above equation:

Heavy objects fall faster than lighter objectsFALSE

Objects fall at the same speed (if no air resistance) and weight doesnt matterTRUE
We can see that the speed (or velocity) of a falling object, denoted (v), is
dependent on the product of gravity and time. Again, we find no variable to
substitute with weight. Velocity (v) is independent of weight.

It took a long time to shake the notion that heavy objects must fall faster. Aristotle
asserted that objects should fall at speeds proportional to their weight. This was
something that intuitively made sense. But intuition is not an important factor in
observation and experiment. Galileo demonstrated this. The legend says he dropped
objects of different weights off the Leaning Tower of Pisa for empirical proof.

Additional misconceptions can come from the fact that gravity exerts a greater force on
more massive (and thus heavier) objects than less massive ones. However, it is important
to recall that inertia is a property of mass that resists acceleration. And because
acceleration is proportional to a net force divided by mass, the greater force will always
be balanced by a greater mass (greater inertia). In mathematical notation, the change of
the numerator will always be the same magnitude as change of the denominator.
Therefore, the greater force exerted on a heavy object is compensated by inertia.

e = 1-Tcold/Thot
Where,

e = Ideal efficiency

T = Temperature (cold surroundings; hot internal temperature of system)

So can we achieve 100% efficiency, in theory, by lowering the surrounding
temperature?
Lets first look at this numerically. If we lowered the surroundings to absolute
zeroa state at minimum kinetic energylets consider its equation: 1 0/Thot =
1.

So a surrounding at the state of absolute zero will result in the second term of

this difference of temperature to be zero. The value of the equation, therefore, is e

= 1, which can also be stated as 100% efficiency.
Is the above possible in practice?
Unfortunately, the temperature differences between Thot and Tcold under everyday
conditions could not result in 100% efficiency. There will always be some heat
and friction present in the difference of the equation for anywhere this concept
applies such as engines on Earth.
So lets suppose we raise Thot to try and increase efficiency
If we assume a constant for surrounding conditions it will relate to this equations
numerator growing at a slightly slower rate than its denominator. We know
mathematically this will increase as the input for Thot increases, but we also know

it lacks efficiency due to the difference of the surroundings in the numerator. So

the efficiency will grow but not perfectly efficient.
Considering a cars combustion engine this equation proves that all the heat
from burned fuel cannot be converted into mechanical work because our
surroundings subtract the efficiencys numerator. It also says the output that
was not converted into work will take a different form: pollution. So if we
want to build a car that approaches e = 100% we must abandon the heat
engine. Although we can use this equation to be less inefficient, I think a
more beneficial step would be considering other ways to power our cars. For
a visual representation, see the diagram below.

Inertia: A Law of Physics

Isaac Newtons first law of motion describes inertia. It is a property of mass that tends to
resist changes in motion. We can define this law as thus: every object continues in a state of
rest or of uniform speed in a straight line unless acted on by a nonzero net force. (Hewitt, 2015)
This means objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and that the reverse is true.
I mentioned above, for the velocity equation (v=gt), that inertia is important to recall for
an understanding of gravity applications. This is because gravity can accelerate objects and
inertia is the resistance of acceleration. The balance of inertia and gravitational pull is why
objects of various weights fall at the same rate. The law of inertia can clear up confusion about
falling objects.
We see inertia everywhere though! It is why we wear seatbelts, for example. Suppose
we were driving a car at a constant speed on a straight road: we will notice our systems inside the
car are at equilibrium. But when the car has a sudden change in direction the bodies inside the
car tend to resist such a motion. Without a seatbelt our inertia can send us out the car window
because our mass (and thus inertia) is resisting the cars change of motion.
Lets now think of a system inside a moving airplane. Our system will be a passenger
sitting inside the plane. While she sits in her seat she is in equilibrium. Now suppose she takes a
coin out of her pocket and flips it up vertically. The vertical action of the coin behaves just as it
would if the airplane was at rest. So even when the plane is at high speeds we notice that our
coin-passenger system resists a change in horizontal equilibrium. That is, the coin keeps up with
the passenger who flipped it. Why? It has inertia!

Fermis Paradox
The physicist Enrico Fermi made an argument based on a few lines of reasoning. He
reasoned that a contradiction exists between the probability of extraterrestrial civilizations and
our amount of evidence for such civilizations. First, lets look at the line of reasoning that gets
us to this apparent paradox:
1) Our Sun is a typical phenomenon in our galaxy. There is a multitude of stars just like it;
some being millions and billions of years older.
2) It is statistically logical that a great number of the stars mentioned above will have Earthlike planets (we have discovered a number of them already). Then it follows that life
(and intelligence) may develop on such planets.
3) If an intelligence exists elsewhere, point (1) tells us that they could be millions of years
ahead of us. Therefore, they could be advanced enough to accomplish interstellar
technology.
4) Probability dictates that a number of interstellar civilizations may exists and, considering
the amount of time our galaxy has seen, most of the galaxy could have been colonized
already. Or at the very least there should be a trace of evidence of these civilizations in
our observable horizon.
The paradox: Given the argument above, where is everybody? I think there are a few
ways to handle this paradox. First we should examine the assumptions being made, then we
may deduce some explanations.
I think the fist extraordinary assumption made in Fermis paradox is that on an Earth-like
planet intelligent life may develop (from point 2). As Carl Segan always said, extraordinary

claims require extraordinary evidence. And we do not have sufficient evidence to assume
that chemistry can develop into biology as a common phenomenon. The conditions for
chemistry to turn into biology may be so rare that it only happens once per galaxy. Maybe
less, maybe more. I simply do not think we have enough evidence for a solid assumption yet.
Next, lets assume that chemistry developing into biology is common enough in our
galaxy. Perhaps such a chemical reaction only became possible approximately the same time
that it happened for us (we are not too certain what conditions yield such a reaction). That is, the
universe may have needed about 9 billion years of developing before conditions could to turn
chemistry into life. If so, any other extraterrestrial life will be about as advanced as us. This
could be why we havent made contact.
Now, lets assume that this chemical reaction is common and it did happen elsewhere
billions of years before it devolved for us. This would mean that more advanced civilizations are
out there. But there may be limitations to the advancements of technology. Even traveling near
the speed of light would require long time intervals to reach us, not to mention technology that
may not be practical. So these advanced beings would have to come up with other methods of
space travel. Perhaps warping space. However, our understanding of this principleAlcubierre
Drivehas some major restriction. For instance, the apparatus that warps space could not
harbor life in it.
Lastly, let us assume that all of the above is possible: biology can evolve elsewhere and
at an earlier time than we did, plus technology can overcome interstellar restrictions. This would
mean that advanced beings exists with the ability to reach us. But we must also ask why would
they bother? They would have to spend an incredible amount of resources to make contact, and
then they would not gain very much in return. Therefore, if contact occurred it may not be in

exploration but rather for exploitation. It may be analogous to Columbus discovering America at
the cost of the natives.
I will conclude on one important factor: the universe is big. So big that unlikely things
happens all the time. For example, supernovas are really rare but we can witness them
frequently due to the large number of stars out there. And obviously life developed once in the
universe, so where is everyone else?

Reflection
One of the reasons why physics is such a useful field is its method for establishing laws.
This is done by testing a hypothesis again and again by anyone and finding an end result that
never contradicts itself. With that in mind, lets review some of the laws I mentioned or implied
above in my project:

Gravity

Inertia

Efficiency

I will go over these one-by-one and further explain how they apply to my writing above.
Starting with gravity. Most notable, gravity applies to falling objects. Recall the equation
d=gt2/2. This means the distance of free fall is dependent on gravity and time. That tells us
how far, but if we want to know how fast we must recall: v=gt. Where, velocity is
dependent of gravity and time as well. So in both of these cases we see that gravity applies to
the acceleration of objects (in this case it is towards Earth). But to understand how let me
introduce the universal law: everything in the universe attracts every other thing with a force
directly proportional to the systems masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the
distances between their centers. Mathematically denoted, F =G m1m2/d2.
Moving on to inertia. A great deal of my projected was spent on inertia (see Physical
Law section, above). This is because I think it is a key to a fundamental understanding of
physics. Inertia is the tendency mass has to resist acceleration. We say it is directly proportional
to mass. So we can notice its affects with anything that has mass, and we notice it when gravity

exerts an acceleration. Inertia is also evident in systems dealing with motion. We wear seatbelts
to protect ourselves from our own inertia in the event of a sudden change of motion.
The next principle to recall: efficiency. I briefly explained in my equation analysis
section that this principle applies to combustion engines (or any heat engines). Let me further
argue why this is important to know. We rely on converting heat into mechanical work for
transportation and much more. But by analyzing this principles physics we can deduce: 1) not
all the heat output is used for work. And 2) the remainder output is in the form of pollution. The
proof for this is in the equation e=1-Tcold/Thot . Simply put, the numerator will always be less than
the denominator, at least in practice. Thus it wont result in 100% efficiency.
I think this is important because of the seriousness of atmospheric pollution. A crucial
step in conserving our climate is to be less inefficient, and then to abandon any energy models
that are harmful. The former can be done by analyzing the equation for (e); the latter can be
done by concluding that this equation isnt sufficient for future models.
Recall the diagram in my equation analysis. I also attached it below. Notice how the hot
temperature dissipates heat, denoted Qh. This energy can then do work on, say, a piston, denoted
W. But also note the output Qc into a cooling reservoir. This
last part of the application is what
concerns me. Analyzing this diagram I think it would be
better to go a new direction in energy innovation than to try
and improve this model.

Physics is a field that I find interesting. However, before my studies it was foreign and
intimidating. All it took was rolling up my selves. That is, my experience from this project has
peaked my interest. Physics is not designed to be foreign and complex. What I have found is
that it takes something in nature and reduces it to its most simple and basic explanation possible.
To make my point, lets compare another discipline to physics. Neurology is built on the base of
biology, which is built on the base of chemistry, which is built on the base of physics. I think
most relevant scientific knowledge has physics at its base, ultimately. Physics is the basics of
science.
This does not mean all of physics will be easy to understand. In fact, almost everything I
learn in physics is counter-intuitive at first. Personally I found much of the arithmetic in my
project pretty straight forward but the concepts and implications of its results was the challenging
part. Lets take gravity for example. It is straightforward to plug in numbers to its equations and
get numerical results. But the physicist doesnt just do math, he or she has to know what the
equations imply. We may plug in numbers and realize that gravity pulls harder on heavier
things. However, if we know the concepts and implications of all the factors and variables we
will recall that inertia compensates. So understanding things conceptually rather than purely
numerically was challenging but was accomplished simply by curiosity and by asking questions
about what certain variables imply.
When I find myself stuck on a problem I have found working with others to be a great
help. Sometimes distance and a fresh perspective on a physics problems is all I needed for an
insight. In turn, this helped me with a number of achievements: communicating ideas, creative
thinking, computing literacy, etc.

I have also reviewed my notes from other courses to gain insights for this project and
class in general. Chemistry, for example, has a lot of similarities with physics. Some equations I
learned in chemistry have translated to physics. Most notably with gas laws like Boyles Law.
And I have included my chemical understanding of the atmosphere to physical applications like
the heat engine. I mentioned above how the output of this engine is chemically harmful to our
climate.
Because physics relates to so much I had to find a process that wouldnt overload me
with information. I did this by simply looking for physics concepts that I come across regularly
in the real world. Then I take note and relate it to a theory or law that I have learned. For
example, I used the word calorie for a great number of years before I physically knew what it
meant. It is a word used so regularly that it is easy to forget it is a physical quantity that relates
to the energy required to raise a gram of water one degree Celsius. Real world relations like that
helped me with the physics in this project. In this particular case it was for the efficiency
equations dealing with heat.
To conclude, let me illustrate how all of the above has increased my knowledge in
physics. First of all I have confirmed the importance thinking in a scenically sound method, and
understanding the role of empirical data. Furthermore, I have gone over a number of physical
laws and realized that I, or anyone else, can test these both analytically and empirically. I have
become a better scientific thinker in the process.

Works Cited
Sessions, Larry. Closet Star Systems to our Sun. EarthSky. May 20 2014. Web.
Hewitt, Paul G. Conceptual Physics. Print.