Tim Talmage

Physics 1010 - SP17 Online

Schaffer
Semester Project
Part 1: Star Identification
The stars I have chosen for identification are four of the brighter, more visible stars within
the Centaurus constellation. The most notable being Alpha Centauri and Beta Centauri, along
with the Gacrux and Acrux of the Southern Cross. From the perspective of the attached image
of the Centaurus constellation, Alpha Centauri is the brightest of all the stars vertically located
near the center of the image just below the horizontal half of the page. The next brightest star
located directly to the upper right of Alpha lies Beta. Further toward the right of the image, along
the same horizontal axis as Alpha is a dark patch known as a dark nebula called the Coalsack.
This region within the image is the beginning of the Crux, or Southern Cross, which appears on
the Australian flag. From the Coalsack, the red giant to the upper diagonal right, named Gamma
Crucis, or simply Gacrux represents the top of the cross. The bottom of the cross, known as
Acrux, lies on the same vertical as Gacrux adjacent to the Coalsack.
Star 1: Alpha Centauri A, also known as Rigil Kentaurus, is 4.365 light years away from Earth
representing one part of a multi-star system containing Alpha Centauri A, B and C (constellation-
guide.com). The distance means that the visible light emitted from this star system is 4.365
years old by the time we observe it. Alpha Centauri A is roughly 25% larger than our own Sun
(space.com), with 1.519 times the luminosity (astropixels.com).
Star 2: Beta Centauri, also known as Hadar, is 392 light years away, meaning any light we may
view from Earth has travelled for 392 years (illinois.edu). Hadar is also known as a multi-star
system, containing Hadar A1, A2, and B, with A1 and A2 being nearly identical in size. Hadar A1
has a mass of about 15 times the Sun, with a luminosity of 1500 times the Sun
(daciddarling.info).
Star 3: Acrux, or Alpha Crucis, is about 320 light years away, meaning the light people in the
Southern Hemisphere of Earth are able to observe within the constellation is 320 years old.
Composed of Alpha 1 and 2, the multi-star system represents the point of the Southern Cross
(constellation-guide.com). Alpha 1 Crucis is stated to be 4.74 times larger than our Sun
(universeguide.com) with a luminosity of 25,000 times the Sun (osr.org).
Star 4: Gacrux, or Gamma Crucis, is 88 light years from Earth. The red giant is the bottom point
of the Southern Cross, and is 30% larger than our Sun with a luminosity of 1500 times that of
the Sun (daviddarling.info).
Sources:
http://www.constellation-guide.com/constellation-list/centaurus-constellation/
http://www.space.com/23563-rigil-kentaurus.html
http://astropixels.com/stars/RigelKent-01.html
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/hadar.html
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/Hadar.html
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/Gacrux.html
https://www.universeguide.com/star/acrux
https://osr.org/blog/astronomy/alpha-crucis/
Part 2: Equation Analysis

Questions 1 & 2:
In order to understand Einsteins equation, we must first be able to understand the
terms within the problem itself. From what weve learned about physics, the equation states that
anything exerting energy has a certain amount of mass and vice versa. The equation E=mc^2
reads: energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared (pbs.org). What we know
already, is that energy is measured by Joules, or the force required to move an object one
meter. The second object we know, is that mass is also measured metrically in Kilograms.
Energy and mass are the variables in the equation. Lastly, since c^2 represents the speed of
light squared, c equals the speed of light, a constant. From this, we can determine that c^2
equals (299,792,458 m/s)^2 or 8.98755179 x 10^25 m^2/s^2.
Questions 3 & 4:
The inquiry of mass and energy and their relation are explained directly by Einsteins
equation. Although much more complex than the simplicity of a two variable equation,
essentially the equation states that if an object was converted completely to electromagnetic
radiation, or pure energy, with a mass of nothing, the rate of travel would be the square of the
speed of light and would represent the massive amount of energy within a small object. The
speed of light is so great and considering it represents the constant in the equation, even the
smallest known object in the world has massive amounts of stored energy. However, it would
require unfathomable amounts of heat and energy to convert to pure electromagnetic radiation.
In short, mass and energy are relative and can be converted into one another in theory through
the natural constant of the speed of light, along with the knowledge of motion we already have.
It does not, however, mean we can simply convert a mass to pure energy. (pbs.org)
Question 5:
In observing the second equation, I would agree with the second statement (b), that
objects fall at the same speed without interference from air resistance. Within the equation itself,
there is no variable for weight or mass or anything about the object in general. Gravity is simply
the term for the acceleration toward Earth.
Question 6:
The third equation of final velocity, altered to match the act of falling from a plane without
air resistance, is written as v = gt. Since there is no initial velocity, and gravity is the constant
acceleration times time itself, the equation is true in the same sense that the prior equation is
true. Without air resistance, an object is subject to the basic functions of physics and motion.
Objects therefore fall at the same speed regardless of weight if air resistance is removed from
the concept. I therefore agree with (d).
Question 7:
After watching the short clip in which the astronaut proves on surface of the moon that
without air resistance, both the hammer and feather reach the ground at the same time. To
answer the question as to why it took so long for humanity to realize this concept, perhaps the
vacuum had not yet been invented before the moon landing and there was essentially no way to
experiment in order to prove the hypothesis correct.
Question 8:
 From what we learned in our textbooks, inertia is the concept in which objects resist
applied force.
Question 9:
In the fourth equation, the heat surrounding the engine represents the numerator. If the
numerator equals zero, then the equation would become e = 1-0 or e = 1, therefore, as stated, it
would reflect 100% efficiency. So, in theory, yes it is possible.
Question 10:
Although in theory this concept would work, the temperature in which 0 degrees Kelvin
represents would be so cold that either it would be overly difficult to achieve or the energy
required to produce a temperature so cold would release energy and make the numerator
greater than 0. In practice it would not work.
Question 11:
Mathematically the requirement for 100% efficiency is e=1, which is only achieved if
Tcold/Thot = 0, or if Tcold = 0. At that point, in theory, Thot has no limit.
Question 12:
In practice, this would also require wasted energy, in the same sense as the prior
theoretical concept. Clearly the method of exerting energy to make Tcold 0 and allowing Thot to
increase without limit would not make sense.
Question 13:
It would not be possible to build a fuel burning car with 100% efficiency, primarily due to
the exhaust and emissions in which the car produces. These immediately alter the numerator of
the equation and would never equate to 0 without also causing the numerator to reach 0 as well.
E = 1 - 0/0 would mean the car engine is frozen.

Part 3: Learning about a Law of Physics

From Chapter 13 - Liquids, I chose Archimedes Principle

Archimedes Principle is a law of physics in fluid mechanics. The text defines the law as
follows: An immersed object is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it
displaces. The principle explains that the force acting upon the floating object is equal to the
displacement in weight of the object itself. The force is only equal to the amount of the object
that is immersed, therefore if half a 2kg object is exactly halfway submerged in a liquid, the force
of buoyancy against the object is equal to 1kg.

Examples:
1.) Consider a simple game of beer pong in which nearly weightless ping pong ball
is tossed into cups of water or beer. When the ball makes impact on the water, its initial
displacement upon first splash is the deepest it will go. Since the ball is spherical and air
tight, it does not allow water pressure to add any weight. Since the ball itself is nearly
weightless, Archimedes principle shows the ball immediately float at the top of the water
with hardly any force needing to hold the ball buoyant.
2.) An even simpler example of Archimedes principle is when you jump into a
swimming pool and float on your back. The amount of force the pool is exerting on your
 body is near equivalent to your weight (assuming your head and a small portion of your
body are above water).
3.) A final example of buoyancy is in relation to scuba divers. Since water pressure
from above works in the same way that air pressure does, the deeper someone dives,
more downward pressure is exerted, causing an equivalent amount of upward pressure
on the diver. In the end, the net difference is always the same no matter the depth.
However, the pressure can cause strain on the human bodys own pressure equilibrium
which is why divers must practice proper pressure adjustments to maintain their own
safety.

Part 4: Explanation of Fermis Paradox and possible resolution.

The Fermi Paradox is fairly simple and equally interesting. The concept supports the
notion of existing extraterrestrial life based to the small amount we know of the size, scope and
age of the galaxy. Since it is known there are billions of other stars in the galaxy that are similar
to our very own Sun, many of which who are millions of years older, it would be almost ignorant
to state there isnt a probability at all of other highly intelligent life forms. If we are to assume the
Earth is a special case in which life exists at a probability of near impossibility, we are simply
waiting to conclude enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Here in lies the issue:
evidence. If the hypothesis states the probability is so great that other life exists based simply
on what we know, assuming older and potentially more advanced life forms exist somewhere,
why have we not had any evidence to conclude this as truth? Here are four resolutions to the
inquiry:

1.) Earth simply has not yet been contacted by any other lifeforms by chance, due to
the massive size of the galaxy itself. Although billions of years have gone by, it is not
guaranteed that we should have recorded contact yet. Perhaps Earth is just another
grain of sand in a desert. But perhaps in the near future we will have visitors and we
simply must be patient. At that point the paradox will not longer be a paradox.
2.) The alternative resolution to the prior statement would be that we have already
been visited by extraterrestrial life prior to our highly civilized world without any
documentation or knowledge. Perhaps we were simply overlooked before our own
existence. Considering human existence is hardly a fraction of a percent of earths
existence itself, it wouldn't make sense to assume we should have been contacted
already. The future could be within our own history and we have yet to discover the
evidence.
3.) Despite advancement in technology, interstellar transportation may forever be
limited. If it takes light hundreds of years to travel to certain destinations, how would it be
plausible to make interstellar travel even feasible? Einsteins theory of time travel
involves travelling faster than the speed of light, which makes complete sense, but is
that even possible? At that speed, particles would destroy even the strongest of
materials. Could technology even reach a point in which messages could be sent faster
than light? Life could exist but we might never know. If we knew our own limits,
essentially all we could do is wait and see if superior life forms have technology far
beyond ours. Otherwise we would have to reject the hypothesis and accept our lonely
existence.
4.) The final resolution would be the opposite of the above and we are simply on the
brink of breakthrough with research (such as the hadron collider). Technology could
simply solve the codes and redact many of the concepts we thought to be laws.
Dimensional theories could allow for doors we didnt know existed to open. Maybe
everything isnt based on time and space and the universe is nothing that thought it was.

Tim Talmage
Physics 1010-SP17
 Schaffer
Semester Project Reflection

It has definitely been a few years since Ive taken a science course, and I have to say,
the topics definitely come full circle. The course in its entirety was nearly nostalgic for me, as I
remembered science class in grade school and the real world applications it provided as a
human being over the years. Although Im only in my mid twenties, I find it amazing both what
the human mind retains and what it doesnt. Physics is clearly a topic that the mind naturally
stores visually and mathematically with the correct lessons and topics of understanding. The
Pearson course does a great job of integrating concepts with simple examples and ultimately
providing practice that helps fully understand the material.
This semester project reminded me the true scale of what I relearned over the
semester. I found it very interesting to start an assignment observing stars and researching the
distance and scope of their relation to our solar system. Upon doing some laborious internet
scavenging on the location and organization of various stars, I learned much more than just the
luminosity of stars in the Centaurus Constellation. Similarities with other star systems are
absolutely mind consuming if you have any interest in wondering about the true meaning of
existence. Mathematical concepts combined with observable natural patterns all begin to
coagulate in your brain. The project constantly had me seeking answers to questions in my own
mind that had zero relation to the project itself. I found information on star systems that were
very much like our own, with revolutions around a star that even replicated Earths. The
beginning of the project definitely opened my eyes a bit to the magnitude of the galaxy and
really how small Earth is.
The various equations throughout the project were a good overview of how relative
everything on Earth really is. Math and science are simply reiterations of what is observable in
this physical world we live in. We only know what is based on the Earth, with the help of the
Moon. Time and space are concepts that have the least answered questions. There are plenty
of theories to explain hypothetical situations, but for now, the future will always be full of
surprises.
The term logic truly came to mind in the last segment of the project. I had always had a
similar hypothesis to that of the Fermi Paradox; that mathematically, it would be far more
ignorant to say we are alone than to say there is something else out there. Although it may go
against every religion on the planet, I find it impossible to believe we are a rare case of
perfection or the creation of some deity. It reminds me of concepts of geocentrism, flat-earth or
mythology. All concepts which have been starkly disproven through science, despite the
stubborn and immobile followers. In the end, with a variable of time, science has always
seemed to prevail. All we can do is be patient and see where our knowledge can take us.