Is it just me, or does love seem to set even usually right-thinking people on the fast track to stupidville? People seem to have the idea that love is something ethereal, something that only poets truly understand. The cultural fallout from this notion is everywhere ('true love', 'love at first sight', etc.).
I must have heard the words 'but it's love, you can't explain it with logic and science' (love is all just hormones and neurotransmitters, people) a million times, and given the requisite explanation a million more. And don't get me started on the girl who told me, after she overheard me talking to someone else, who shares my views on this (they do exist!), 'science takes all the emotion out of everything, it shouldn't be allowed to mess with love', and then, when I tried to explain, 'I don't care about science, it doesn't matter'. When scientists save your life one day, you may think differently.
Can we please, as a society, move on from putting love on a pedestal as this untouchable, pure, poetic thing? It's a remnant of the evolutionary pair-bonding imperative, which exists to maximise the continuation resilience of the species. Nothing more, nothing less. Repeat after me: love is all just hormones and neurotransmitters...
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Sunday, 17 May 2009
On angels, demons and antimatter
Unless you've been living on another planet for the past month or so (and I wouldn't blame you if you had!), you have probably heard about the film adaptation of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons. If you like your films, you've probably also heard from most critics that it is rubbish. Well, in my opinion, you heard wrong. Very wrong indeed.
(Minor spoiler warning, although most of the things I'll discuss you probably already know)
Although the script does deviate from the book at the beginning quite substantially (i.e. Langdon never goes to CERN in the film, and Max Kohler is absent), for those who haven't read the book, the film's sequence of events does set things out more logically. The middle and end follow the book fairly closely, and the ending sequence with the antimatter 'bomb' was just as spectacular as I thought (hoped?) it would be.
I feel that a lot of critics have become too used to seeing either a) films with no intellectual content at all, and are thus surprised to see something that at least tries to educate it's viewers; or b) films with so much emotion and high-class cinematography that they've forgotten what a good mystery film is.
Now, Angels was never going to be 100% scientifically accurate, I mean if you took all the antimatter ever made in any particle accelerator, it would barely add up to a billionth of a gram, let alone the amount seen in the film (or mentioned in the book, which I have indeed read). Secondly, we don't know exactly what antimatter looks like, but I highly doubt that it looks like blue plasma! However, the ability of an antimatter weapon to level a city is most certainly true, although not in the way most people think. The reason that it is so powerful, and so efficient is that 100% of the mass of the particles involved is converted into energy. The energy density (amount of energy per kilogram) of antimatter is about 4 orders of magnitude (10,000x) greater than that of conventional nuclear fuel.
Taking the amount of antimatter in the container shown in the film to be about 10 grams, on total annihilation with the same amount of matter it would release about $1.8\times10^{15}$ joules of energy; this is about 430 kilotons of TNT. For comparison, the 'Little Boy' bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was about 15 kilotons, and that virtually obliterated the city centre. However, this calculation assumes that all the mass is converted to gamma rays, which then superheat the surrounding matter extremely fast, leading to the devastating blast. The most likely candidate particle(s) for an antimatter bomb would not lead to this.
When antiprotons and antineutrons annihilate with regular protons and neutrons, around 60% of the energy produced is taken away by neutrinos, which do not interact with matter in any appreciable way, and therefore the energy is 'lost' (at least in terms of explosive yield). Taking this into account we get: $(1.8\times10^{15}J)\times0.4 = 7.28\times10^{14}J$. This is about 172kt of TNT, still a big explosion, but not the earth-shattering blast most people would expect.
In conclusion, Angels and Demons is a fantastic film, especially if (like me) you're a fan of historical or semi-historical mysteries. The scientific inaccuracies don't really bother me all that much, it was never designed to be a particle physics film. Although I do think they should have given a bit more explanation as to exactly what antimatter does, and why it is so explosive.
(Minor spoiler warning, although most of the things I'll discuss you probably already know)
Although the script does deviate from the book at the beginning quite substantially (i.e. Langdon never goes to CERN in the film, and Max Kohler is absent), for those who haven't read the book, the film's sequence of events does set things out more logically. The middle and end follow the book fairly closely, and the ending sequence with the antimatter 'bomb' was just as spectacular as I thought (hoped?) it would be.
I feel that a lot of critics have become too used to seeing either a) films with no intellectual content at all, and are thus surprised to see something that at least tries to educate it's viewers; or b) films with so much emotion and high-class cinematography that they've forgotten what a good mystery film is.
Now, Angels was never going to be 100% scientifically accurate, I mean if you took all the antimatter ever made in any particle accelerator, it would barely add up to a billionth of a gram, let alone the amount seen in the film (or mentioned in the book, which I have indeed read). Secondly, we don't know exactly what antimatter looks like, but I highly doubt that it looks like blue plasma! However, the ability of an antimatter weapon to level a city is most certainly true, although not in the way most people think. The reason that it is so powerful, and so efficient is that 100% of the mass of the particles involved is converted into energy. The energy density (amount of energy per kilogram) of antimatter is about 4 orders of magnitude (10,000x) greater than that of conventional nuclear fuel.
Taking the amount of antimatter in the container shown in the film to be about 10 grams, on total annihilation with the same amount of matter it would release about $1.8\times10^{15}$ joules of energy; this is about 430 kilotons of TNT. For comparison, the 'Little Boy' bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was about 15 kilotons, and that virtually obliterated the city centre. However, this calculation assumes that all the mass is converted to gamma rays, which then superheat the surrounding matter extremely fast, leading to the devastating blast. The most likely candidate particle(s) for an antimatter bomb would not lead to this.
When antiprotons and antineutrons annihilate with regular protons and neutrons, around 60% of the energy produced is taken away by neutrinos, which do not interact with matter in any appreciable way, and therefore the energy is 'lost' (at least in terms of explosive yield). Taking this into account we get: $(1.8\times10^{15}J)\times0.4 = 7.28\times10^{14}J$. This is about 172kt of TNT, still a big explosion, but not the earth-shattering blast most people would expect.
In conclusion, Angels and Demons is a fantastic film, especially if (like me) you're a fan of historical or semi-historical mysteries. The scientific inaccuracies don't really bother me all that much, it was never designed to be a particle physics film. Although I do think they should have given a bit more explanation as to exactly what antimatter does, and why it is so explosive.
Friday, 8 May 2009
Why would Paris Hilton be safe in a zombie apocalypse?
Answer: They want braiiiinnnns.
And she certainly doesn't have one. London's 'Metro' newspaper has a report detailing how, through legal documents filed as part of a court case, it has come to light just how air-headed the socialite really is.
Apparently she 'gets a new cell phone, like, every two weeks' and has never seen a phone bill in her life. She was a producer for the 2006 flop 'Pledge This!' (and it is this that the whole court case is about, according to the plaintiffs she failed to promote the film effectively), but when asked about this role, she didn't even know what a producer does! 'Help get cool people in the cast', apparently.
My main issue isn't really with morons like Hilton, if they want to stay stupid and aren't interested in the world around them, fine. However, what really annoys me is that they (either actively or passively) encourage young people to follow in their footsteps! 'Oh, I don't care about science or other subjects because I'll just become a socialite instead of getting a job!'. This is mainly girls, although footballers do exactly the same to teenage boys' brains.
I'm sure that when a new medical procedure or chemical (developed by scientists; those who do care) saves their lives or those of their family, they'll be singing a different tune.
And she certainly doesn't have one. London's 'Metro' newspaper has a report detailing how, through legal documents filed as part of a court case, it has come to light just how air-headed the socialite really is.
Apparently she 'gets a new cell phone, like, every two weeks' and has never seen a phone bill in her life. She was a producer for the 2006 flop 'Pledge This!' (and it is this that the whole court case is about, according to the plaintiffs she failed to promote the film effectively), but when asked about this role, she didn't even know what a producer does! 'Help get cool people in the cast', apparently.
My main issue isn't really with morons like Hilton, if they want to stay stupid and aren't interested in the world around them, fine. However, what really annoys me is that they (either actively or passively) encourage young people to follow in their footsteps! 'Oh, I don't care about science or other subjects because I'll just become a socialite instead of getting a job!'. This is mainly girls, although footballers do exactly the same to teenage boys' brains.
I'm sure that when a new medical procedure or chemical (developed by scientists; those who do care) saves their lives or those of their family, they'll be singing a different tune.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
