What does cooking a big pot of pasta have to do with climate change?
It's a graphic example of what it takes to trap heat in an air space.
The theory of the "greenhouse effect" has been around for a long time and its salient idea has been stated in many different ways. Regardless of how it's stated, it is a central hypothesis of how the earth could become abnormally warmed.
Simply put, the "greenhouse effect" hypothesizes that, through some atmospheric mechanism (I will use the word "mechanism" here in its conceptual, not technical sense), heat becomes trapped in the earth's atmosphere, thus causing the earth to heat up, thus causing catastrophic climate change.
Much of the discussion on this point centers on whether certain activities create "greenhouse gasses" or contribute to the "greenhouse effect" (that is, contribute to the atmospheric mechanism that traps heat against the earth).
IOW, the greenhouse effect and all its sequelae (in whatever context) assume that (1) it is possible to put a lid on the earth's atmosphere. Moreover, it assumes that (2) this lid can become large, stable and efficacious enough to trap heat.
Of course, there is more to the theory than that: it assumes, for example, that this trapped heat can become sufficient to abnormally warm the entire planet. It also assumes that this can occur without any change in the earth's major heat source, the sun. Further, there's a big difference between boiling water, with the heat source below the lid, and heating a greenhouse, with the heat source above the "lid." But for now I would like to concentrate on the examining the mechanics of this atmospheric "lid."
All cooks know that to boil water faster than usual, they can use a lid to trap heat in the pot. But the bigger the pot, the bigger the lid has to be. In fact, there's an inverse relationship between the size and tightness of the lid and its efficacy at trapping heat. Just from cooking pasta, I would guess that a lid has to be more than 50% the size of the pot before it has any noticeable capacity to trap heat and hasten boiling.
Moreover, to hasten boiling (heat increase), the lid mostly has to be kept on the pot. It must remain stable, and not be taken on and off.
For heat to become trapped in the earth's atmosphere, how much of the earth's atmosphere would have to be under the "lid"?
How stable would this "lid" have to be to effectively trap heat?
Even if the "lid" covered the entire earth's atmosphere, how likely is it that leaks (escape valves) would not exist ---IOW, that it would fit completely and remain stable (that size and in that place) for a sufficient amount of time to trap sufficient heat, and, moreover, remain uneffected (competent as a lid) by the heat building under it? (After all, this atmospheric lid would be made of gasses, not of metal or glass as a pot lid is.)
So here's what I'm asking:
If x (something like the creation of "greenhouse gasses") leads to y (an area that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere), to reach w (global warming resulting in catastrophic climate change), y would have to equal g (the percentage of the earth's atmosphere sufficient to trap heat sufficient to effect the global climate) x s (the period of time a g-size trap would have to remain in place [stable] to trap heat sufficient to effect the global climate).
In this analysis, to demonstrate that something like the creation of "greenhouse gasses" leads to global warming, you'd have to show:
x = y
y = g x s
g x s = w
w = x
What do you think?
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Death by Biological Black Hole
Previously on this blog, I posited a hypothesis about the existence of biological black holes.
Basically, I extrapolated my idea from an explanation of how supermassive [astrophysical] black holes are integral to the formation of galaxies.
To restate my hypothesis on the existence of biological black holes:
1. Sperm and egg cells contain vast (relative to their size) stores of energy.
2. When a sperm cell penetrates an egg, either the collision of the two cells' energy stores or the "combustibility" of the fuel that results from combining the two cells' energy stores results in an explosion.
3. This explosion, ultimately, results in the formation of a biological black hole that feeds off the fuel, like an astrophysical black hole feeds off its quasar.
4. The biological black hole causes matter to condense---the creation of cells (analogous to the creation of stars).
5. The continued functioning of the black hole pushes those cells outward, eventually forming the body.
6. The biological black hole feeds until its fuel (its "quasar") is gone and then enters a (relative) "quiet" state.
This hypothesis addresses the formation of the physical component of "life."
Might it also explain the formation of the physical status we call "death"?
Here's what I'm thinking.
As I said in my initial piece, my thoughts here were prompted by two programs on astrophysical black holes, one on supermassive black holes and one on Stephen Hawking's theory of the information paradox.
One fact I gleaned from these programs is that, while scientists theorize and prove mathematically the destructive power of black holes, and they do attribute some movement of stars to the effect of black holes, no one yet has been able to image matter actually being sucked into a black hole and, supposedly, disappearing (at least from human sight).
[This brings up the question of the information paradox, as proposed and later elaborated upon (some say repudiated), by Stephen Hawking . However, I am putting the information paradox, and all its associated controversy, aside for the moment.]
What I am wondering about is this:
On the one hand, a scientist noted that our galaxy, the Milky Way, has hundreds of millions of black holes, and that there may be many, many small black holes throughout the realm in which we live---as the scientist said, for example, there may be black holes "in this room or in my head."
On the other hand, since, according to scientists, black holes retain their destructive power after they stop feeding on their quasars and enter a (relatively) quiet state, why are they not wreaking measurable or image-able destruction wherever they occur? Why has no one been able to image matter / information entering a black hole?
I wondered if, in the ying and yang that seems to characterize all that exists, the destructive force of black holes is countered by some force or phenomenon that acts as a black-hole shield.
I also contemplated how the continued, though apparently at times abated, destructive power of black holes would function in my hypothesis of the existence of biological black holes. (I am also now calling these biological black holes "primal" black holes, as they are present at and integral to the formation of a living entity and remain associated with that entity until the entity no longer exists in its present form.)
Here's an idea:
If biological black holes exist and function to form new physical structures (such as a human body), then we could hypothesize that, like astrophysical black holes, biological black holes persist in a quiet state and retain their destructive potential.
This, then, would be a way to explain the physical component of the process we call "death."
The hypothesis of death by biological black hole would go like this:
Death of a biological entity, such as a human body, occurs when that entity's associated biological black hole (the bbh formed when the energy stores of the sperm and egg collided or combined to create an explosion, and which then condenses the matter and pushes it into the form of the entity) becomes reactivated and begins to feed off the entity's presently unrecognized cellular energy stores.
(These energy stores go beyond what we know about mitichondrial-produced energy and so on. They are along the lines of nuclear energy. I will call this energy ozz.)
The biological black hole sucks increasing amounts of energy (ozz) out of the body.
(Again, it must be emphasized that here "energy" has a much broader, though presently undefined, meaning than its usual usage in biology. Moreover, since the form of this energy is unknown, the way it is stored and how it is associated with the body is unknown. Therefore, to state the biological black holes sucks energy (ozz) "out of the body" means something like "out of the body and its associated energy stores.")
As the biological black hole depletes the body's ozz, the body begins to die. If not interrupted, the reactivated biological black hole continues to feed off the body's ozz (associated energy stores) until the body is dead and, ultimately, decomposed.
As we observe, the process of death can be fast or slow. It can be sudden or appear to be sudden. If what we call the physical component of death is essentially the reabsorbtion of the body's matter / information into that body's associated (primal) biological black hole, then what causes or allows the reabsorbtion at one point in time, but not others?
IOW, if a biological black hole, like an astrophysical black hole, remains at all times able to destroy---in this hypothesis, to induce the process we call "death" in living entities---why does death occur one day and not another? Why does a particular event cause death in one entity but not in a seemingly similarly situated entity? What abates the destructive power of the black hole until death occurs?
This abatement could be related to the size of the entity's ozz stores. The more ozz, the more protected the body is against the destructive power of its associated black hole. And perhaps the entity's ozz stores can be influenced by what we call "healthy choices."
Or it could be that the primal biological black hole is not actually quiet after construction of the body, but rather that it has a different energy source it feeds on while it appears "quiet." But at some point this different energy source is depleted. Then the primal biological black hole taps into the entity's ozz and feeds on it until the physical component of death and decomposition of the body is complete or sufficiently interrupted.
What we view as "sudden death," then, would be the visible result of a sudden ozz depletion caused by sudden voraciousness of the entity's primal biological black hole.
In any event, if it were proved correct that biological (primal) black holes formed entities' physical component---such as a human body, then I would hypothesize that death occurs by the destructive force of those black holes.
What do you think?
Basically, I extrapolated my idea from an explanation of how supermassive [astrophysical] black holes are integral to the formation of galaxies.
To restate my hypothesis on the existence of biological black holes:
1. Sperm and egg cells contain vast (relative to their size) stores of energy.
2. When a sperm cell penetrates an egg, either the collision of the two cells' energy stores or the "combustibility" of the fuel that results from combining the two cells' energy stores results in an explosion.
3. This explosion, ultimately, results in the formation of a biological black hole that feeds off the fuel, like an astrophysical black hole feeds off its quasar.
4. The biological black hole causes matter to condense---the creation of cells (analogous to the creation of stars).
5. The continued functioning of the black hole pushes those cells outward, eventually forming the body.
6. The biological black hole feeds until its fuel (its "quasar") is gone and then enters a (relative) "quiet" state.
This hypothesis addresses the formation of the physical component of "life."
Might it also explain the formation of the physical status we call "death"?
Here's what I'm thinking.
As I said in my initial piece, my thoughts here were prompted by two programs on astrophysical black holes, one on supermassive black holes and one on Stephen Hawking's theory of the information paradox.
One fact I gleaned from these programs is that, while scientists theorize and prove mathematically the destructive power of black holes, and they do attribute some movement of stars to the effect of black holes, no one yet has been able to image matter actually being sucked into a black hole and, supposedly, disappearing (at least from human sight).
[This brings up the question of the information paradox, as proposed and later elaborated upon (some say repudiated), by Stephen Hawking . However, I am putting the information paradox, and all its associated controversy, aside for the moment.]
What I am wondering about is this:
On the one hand, a scientist noted that our galaxy, the Milky Way, has hundreds of millions of black holes, and that there may be many, many small black holes throughout the realm in which we live---as the scientist said, for example, there may be black holes "in this room or in my head."
On the other hand, since, according to scientists, black holes retain their destructive power after they stop feeding on their quasars and enter a (relatively) quiet state, why are they not wreaking measurable or image-able destruction wherever they occur? Why has no one been able to image matter / information entering a black hole?
I wondered if, in the ying and yang that seems to characterize all that exists, the destructive force of black holes is countered by some force or phenomenon that acts as a black-hole shield.
I also contemplated how the continued, though apparently at times abated, destructive power of black holes would function in my hypothesis of the existence of biological black holes. (I am also now calling these biological black holes "primal" black holes, as they are present at and integral to the formation of a living entity and remain associated with that entity until the entity no longer exists in its present form.)
Here's an idea:
If biological black holes exist and function to form new physical structures (such as a human body), then we could hypothesize that, like astrophysical black holes, biological black holes persist in a quiet state and retain their destructive potential.
This, then, would be a way to explain the physical component of the process we call "death."
The hypothesis of death by biological black hole would go like this:
Death of a biological entity, such as a human body, occurs when that entity's associated biological black hole (the bbh formed when the energy stores of the sperm and egg collided or combined to create an explosion, and which then condenses the matter and pushes it into the form of the entity) becomes reactivated and begins to feed off the entity's presently unrecognized cellular energy stores.
(These energy stores go beyond what we know about mitichondrial-produced energy and so on. They are along the lines of nuclear energy. I will call this energy ozz.)
The biological black hole sucks increasing amounts of energy (ozz) out of the body.
(Again, it must be emphasized that here "energy" has a much broader, though presently undefined, meaning than its usual usage in biology. Moreover, since the form of this energy is unknown, the way it is stored and how it is associated with the body is unknown. Therefore, to state the biological black holes sucks energy (ozz) "out of the body" means something like "out of the body and its associated energy stores.")
As the biological black hole depletes the body's ozz, the body begins to die. If not interrupted, the reactivated biological black hole continues to feed off the body's ozz (associated energy stores) until the body is dead and, ultimately, decomposed.
As we observe, the process of death can be fast or slow. It can be sudden or appear to be sudden. If what we call the physical component of death is essentially the reabsorbtion of the body's matter / information into that body's associated (primal) biological black hole, then what causes or allows the reabsorbtion at one point in time, but not others?
IOW, if a biological black hole, like an astrophysical black hole, remains at all times able to destroy---in this hypothesis, to induce the process we call "death" in living entities---why does death occur one day and not another? Why does a particular event cause death in one entity but not in a seemingly similarly situated entity? What abates the destructive power of the black hole until death occurs?
This abatement could be related to the size of the entity's ozz stores. The more ozz, the more protected the body is against the destructive power of its associated black hole. And perhaps the entity's ozz stores can be influenced by what we call "healthy choices."
Or it could be that the primal biological black hole is not actually quiet after construction of the body, but rather that it has a different energy source it feeds on while it appears "quiet." But at some point this different energy source is depleted. Then the primal biological black hole taps into the entity's ozz and feeds on it until the physical component of death and decomposition of the body is complete or sufficiently interrupted.
What we view as "sudden death," then, would be the visible result of a sudden ozz depletion caused by sudden voraciousness of the entity's primal biological black hole.
In any event, if it were proved correct that biological (primal) black holes formed entities' physical component---such as a human body, then I would hypothesize that death occurs by the destructive force of those black holes.
What do you think?
A Theory of the Existence of Biological Black Holes
Last night, I watched back-to back programs on PBS on the subject of black holes. One program was on supermassive black holes and the other was on the history of the "information paradox" posited by, and later superceded (some say repudiated) by, Stephen Hawking.
Once black holes were "discovered" (i.e., recognized), scientists originally thought they were a rare phenomenon. Now scientists know that, even in our own galaxy, there are hundreds of millions of black holes. Moreover, they have concluded that at the heart of every (or most every) large galaxy, there is a supermassive black hole.
Here's how I heard the information presented.
Initially, the consensus seemed to be that these supermassive black holes were coincidental with a galaxy, but not integral to it. IOW, that the supermassive black hole was some sort of "leftover" from the process of galaxy formation; a remnant of a largely destructive force that no longer exerted influence on the coherent relationships of the stars (and whatever else that presently is unrecognized) in the galaxy.
Scientists were wrong. Now they believe that not only are supermassive black holes integral to the structure of a galaxy, but that supermassive black holes are an important, if not the, mechanism for galaxy formation.
The following explanation is for a general overview, but it probably is not completely accurate, or completely technically correct, but here's the gist as IRI:
The process of galaxy formation, restating what I learned from this program, involved the formation of the supermassive black hole, which then began to feed violently on the gasses of its quasar.
This process of energy consumption led to the condensation of matter---the creation of stars.
As the black hole continued to consume energy, the force of this process pushed the stars outward. The black hole continued this process of energy consumption until its quasar was completely consumed.
At this point, the black hole had exhausted its energy source and, therefore, it went "quiet" (terms such as "quiet" are always relevant, in my view; yes, the black hole is no longer in a feeding frenzy viz-a-vis its quasar, yet that by no means demonstrates that it is devoid of activity or influence).
When the black hole went quiet, the stars were "set" (again, relatively speaking) in their galaxy.
I wondered: did a black hole enter a "quiet" state simply because it consumed all the energy available for its so-called "active" state?
IOW, would a black hole continue to consume quasar-like energy infinitely if it had an infinite source of such energy?
Further, would a "quiet" black hole re-enter an active state if it were resupplied with quasar-like energy? IOW, could and would the black hole begin feeding again if it had a new source of energy?
As I contemplated this explanation of the formation of galaxies, and my questions set out above, I began to relate this to other ideas discussed in these programs.
First, that black holes traditionally have been viewed as destructive, not creative.
That the destructive power of a black hole has only been theorized, never imaged.
So here's what I'm asking:
It seems to me that the process of formation---here, of galaxies---is fundamental. That is, that it has patterns or mechanisms that, at some level, are repeated in every process that results in formation of something. One of these patterns seems to be release of energy (e.g., the force pushing the stars away from the active / "feeding" black hole) through the consumption of energy (e.g., the black hole consuming its quasar).
So this might mean that our understanding of the formative process for galaxies could help explain other formative processes.
Based on that, I set out an hypothesis of the existence of biological black holes that are analogous to astrophysical black holes, as follows.
Take the example of the formation of a human body.
Put in terms of galaxy formation, here's the hypothesis:
Sperm cells and ova contain (not yet recognized) vast (relative to their size) stores of energy that act like fuels that are combustible only in combination.
When a sperm cell penetrates an ovum, either a violent collision of energy (cellular energy that is not yet recognized) or combustibility caused by combining two cellular fuel stores results in an explosion that leads to formation of a biological black hole.
This explosion of (what we will presently call) the cellular fuel stores of the sperm and the egg results in a "quasar" that feeds the biological black hole.
As the biological black hole feeds vigorously on its quasar, it causes the condensation of matter---the creation of cells.
As the biological black hole continues to consume energy, the force of this process pushes the cells outward. The biological black hole continues this process of energy consumption until its quasar is completely consumed and the cells have formed a human body, like the stars form a galaxy.
Of course, this hypothesis does not address how the cells differentiate and organize. (Then again, the theory of galaxy formation does not address how the stars, at some level, differentiate and organize into a coherent structure, a galaxy.) But it does go to how the initial spark for the formation of a new structure (here, a human body) might occur.
What do you think?
Once black holes were "discovered" (i.e., recognized), scientists originally thought they were a rare phenomenon. Now scientists know that, even in our own galaxy, there are hundreds of millions of black holes. Moreover, they have concluded that at the heart of every (or most every) large galaxy, there is a supermassive black hole.
Here's how I heard the information presented.
Initially, the consensus seemed to be that these supermassive black holes were coincidental with a galaxy, but not integral to it. IOW, that the supermassive black hole was some sort of "leftover" from the process of galaxy formation; a remnant of a largely destructive force that no longer exerted influence on the coherent relationships of the stars (and whatever else that presently is unrecognized) in the galaxy.
Scientists were wrong. Now they believe that not only are supermassive black holes integral to the structure of a galaxy, but that supermassive black holes are an important, if not the, mechanism for galaxy formation.
The following explanation is for a general overview, but it probably is not completely accurate, or completely technically correct, but here's the gist as IRI:
The process of galaxy formation, restating what I learned from this program, involved the formation of the supermassive black hole, which then began to feed violently on the gasses of its quasar.
This process of energy consumption led to the condensation of matter---the creation of stars.
As the black hole continued to consume energy, the force of this process pushed the stars outward. The black hole continued this process of energy consumption until its quasar was completely consumed.
At this point, the black hole had exhausted its energy source and, therefore, it went "quiet" (terms such as "quiet" are always relevant, in my view; yes, the black hole is no longer in a feeding frenzy viz-a-vis its quasar, yet that by no means demonstrates that it is devoid of activity or influence).
When the black hole went quiet, the stars were "set" (again, relatively speaking) in their galaxy.
I wondered: did a black hole enter a "quiet" state simply because it consumed all the energy available for its so-called "active" state?
IOW, would a black hole continue to consume quasar-like energy infinitely if it had an infinite source of such energy?
Further, would a "quiet" black hole re-enter an active state if it were resupplied with quasar-like energy? IOW, could and would the black hole begin feeding again if it had a new source of energy?
As I contemplated this explanation of the formation of galaxies, and my questions set out above, I began to relate this to other ideas discussed in these programs.
First, that black holes traditionally have been viewed as destructive, not creative.
That the destructive power of a black hole has only been theorized, never imaged.
So here's what I'm asking:
It seems to me that the process of formation---here, of galaxies---is fundamental. That is, that it has patterns or mechanisms that, at some level, are repeated in every process that results in formation of something. One of these patterns seems to be release of energy (e.g., the force pushing the stars away from the active / "feeding" black hole) through the consumption of energy (e.g., the black hole consuming its quasar).
So this might mean that our understanding of the formative process for galaxies could help explain other formative processes.
Based on that, I set out an hypothesis of the existence of biological black holes that are analogous to astrophysical black holes, as follows.
Take the example of the formation of a human body.
Put in terms of galaxy formation, here's the hypothesis:
Sperm cells and ova contain (not yet recognized) vast (relative to their size) stores of energy that act like fuels that are combustible only in combination.
When a sperm cell penetrates an ovum, either a violent collision of energy (cellular energy that is not yet recognized) or combustibility caused by combining two cellular fuel stores results in an explosion that leads to formation of a biological black hole.
This explosion of (what we will presently call) the cellular fuel stores of the sperm and the egg results in a "quasar" that feeds the biological black hole.
As the biological black hole feeds vigorously on its quasar, it causes the condensation of matter---the creation of cells.
As the biological black hole continues to consume energy, the force of this process pushes the cells outward. The biological black hole continues this process of energy consumption until its quasar is completely consumed and the cells have formed a human body, like the stars form a galaxy.
Of course, this hypothesis does not address how the cells differentiate and organize. (Then again, the theory of galaxy formation does not address how the stars, at some level, differentiate and organize into a coherent structure, a galaxy.) But it does go to how the initial spark for the formation of a new structure (here, a human body) might occur.
What do you think?
First Things - The iwonder Guide to Wondering
As the first post on this blog, and as I'm sure it will take a while to get to writing the explanatory sidebars, let me begin with this qualifier:
What I am about to embark upon here is an exposition of a layman's contemplation. I have no specialized knowledge in all the fields I may muse on, but I enjoy what essentially is "shooting the breeze" at a high level.
While I try to use language in a precise way, clearly I will not always use words in their technical sense or as terms of art. For example, "consumption," as in "consumption of energy" no doubt has a precise technical meaning, but I would more likely be using its popular meaning.
The point is, try to get the gist of the idea before picking at the technicalities.
The whole point is that I believe a more frequent melding of science (thinking that requires more or less rigid adherence to certain parameters) and imagination (thinking that has no bounds and is even fantastical) might just lead us to some astounding insights.
Plus, it's just plain fun.
Really, there has to be more to read and talk about on the internet than Britney Spears stories.
So here's to throwing stuff out there and seeing if anything sticks. Happy Cogitation to all!
What I am about to embark upon here is an exposition of a layman's contemplation. I have no specialized knowledge in all the fields I may muse on, but I enjoy what essentially is "shooting the breeze" at a high level.
While I try to use language in a precise way, clearly I will not always use words in their technical sense or as terms of art. For example, "consumption," as in "consumption of energy" no doubt has a precise technical meaning, but I would more likely be using its popular meaning.
The point is, try to get the gist of the idea before picking at the technicalities.
The whole point is that I believe a more frequent melding of science (thinking that requires more or less rigid adherence to certain parameters) and imagination (thinking that has no bounds and is even fantastical) might just lead us to some astounding insights.
Plus, it's just plain fun.
Really, there has to be more to read and talk about on the internet than Britney Spears stories.
So here's to throwing stuff out there and seeing if anything sticks. Happy Cogitation to all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
