Questions of Complexity

     Today's been a good day.  How about yours?  Quite honestly, sometimes when your in the middle of your day and it seems like crap, you come home and listen to something soothing, all of it seems trivial.  They tell me that the soothing sounds of the ocean is better than the best opiates.
     I'm sitting here and working on my "Maxwell's Equations" post, but this is going to take some extra time.  As it turns out, I never made it to vector calculus.  Euclid's fifth postulate and the problems that face it just barely escape me.  That's why I read about this stuff though.  I just keep on getting better.
     Before I go on, I'm going to link this playlist here.  I don't want to lose this.  Now moving on.
     For the last three years, I've been a farm hand.  It's in the exciting world of organic farming.  The thing that gets me is, I've had people argue that we need to get back to the roots, or something called natural farming.  There is another movement called bio-dynamics that bugs me because the more I try to understand it, the less sense it makes to me.
     The thing about all these that bothers me is they don't treat agriculture as a science.  The most appealing thing about farming is looking at everything and watching it work.  It's not magic, it's a machine.  Many people object to that term, so let me explain.  A machine is not a soul-less, uncaring, unfeeling hunk of metal.  It's complex, governed by laws that we seek to understand.  I like to use the analogy of a car engine, but sadly I find that example lost on some people.
     I've heard the term "fragile ecosystem" used to describe the earth, so let us try and start there.  The term is used to talk about how hunting creatures to extinction or cutting down forests will lead to changes in global climates.  This is the machine I'm talking about.  Each creature acts as a gear or a cog in it's given ecosystem.  If you remove the gear, or change how the gear works, or even add one, it will change the machine as a whole.  Of course, the world is a wondrous place, helped in part by the complexity of the machine.  We stand back and watch this machine work, and we are taken aback by the fact that we cannot begin to fathom just how each part works.  We see connections here and there, but the complexity is lost on us.  And as Arthur C. Clarke put it "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
    What does this have to do with farming?  Well, the first time someone described bio-dynamics to me, I thought they were talking about creating an ecosystem on a small scale.  Or a small, organic machine.  This appeals to the side of me that is obsessed  with science, logic, and math.  The idea of creating you're own carefully balanced machine that can provide you with food!  People familiar with bio-dynamics understand that it goes so much more than miniature ecosystems.  And when I found about the mysticism that went with it, I was very disappointed.
     I'm working with fungus at the moment, so I get a chance to learn about the workings of fungus and how they can apply to an ecosystem.  It does more than decompose things.  Fungus inhales oxygen and exhales CO2.  There are specific types of fungus that grow on specific types of root systems.  It's said that spores lead to rain in the rain forest.  And these factors work together in an ecosystem to create healthy soil, healthy plants, and healthy animals.
     Farms, and forests, are complex in how each small factor works with each other.  And they are chaotic in that the factors that are most important to the success of the farm, are the things that are the most unpredictable.  Sure, things like the weather can be broken down into a series of equations, but in the end the answer comes down to probability.  This probability is what keeps it going though.  Tonight, I find myself lying here and pulling apart ecosystems in my mind.  And the question keeps coming back around, how do you apply the chaotic complexity of the natural world into the structure world man has created?
     There are ideas put out in the ag world right now that seem new, but can be observed in the forest.  Trees in a deciduous mulch themselves.  It's wild.  They help provide the nutrients that they need.  And they help kill the weeds that would keep their offspring from coming up.  But without the supporting players in the form of the stuff living in the sub-soil, they would be sick all the time.  Can these ideas be applied to a farm?  Can a small scale ecosystem be created?  And would it create healthy plants and animals?  At the very least, this is something that should be done just so we can further understand how ecosystems work.

Opitiks

     Sometimes, I sit and stare at this blank screen while thoughts drift by with no real mass.  The best I can do at times like these is to try and snag them.  Today, however, I have too much I want to write about.  It's all philosophy, math and science, and it's all heaped into a pile in the middle of my mind.  It doesn't do anything there; it needs to be organized into boxes where I can access them.
     My mind has been on telescopes and the world of optics recently.  I started building a mirror for a telescope last winter and now as the nights grow colder and the night sky grows clearer, I keep thinking about finishing that mirror.  I've been working on thermodynamics for the past five months or so, now I want to start focusing on other things smaller than the naked eye.
     I've gotten to a point were I am realizing that there is only great moments in science.  Growing up I heard about Albert Einstein and how great he was.  Right now, it seems Nikola Tesla is in the center of hero worship spotlight.  As Issac Newton once said "If I have seen further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants."  Everyone has their ideas based in the ideas of the people that came before them.  Last spring, I read "Optiks" by Sir Issac Newton.  It's a nice, simple introduction to optics.  It's basic if you know geometry.  Tonight, I'm reading through articles trying to find something explaining James Maxwell's fish-eye lens, which was conceived of 200 years after optics.  Apparently, a lot of new insight into optics was happening around this time.  People were still using the basics laid out by Newton, but were adding onto it with their own equations.
    This is a common theme in the world of science.  People don't just memorize someone else's equation, they use it to solve problems and create new questions of their own.  The more I read about Maxwell, the more he intrigues me.  He came up with theories and discoveries that influenced the next few hundred years of science.  Electromagnetism, thermodynamics, optics, and he even discovered the particles in the rings of Saturn.  But, without the people who came latter, he would have been nothing.
     Wow, I'm really losing focus as I'm reading this article.  Theoretical math and physics is hands down the coolest sci-fi I have ever read.  I'm going to wrap this up.  I'm going to start reading more about electromagnets and optics.  Electromagnets still deal with energy, so it really is just the next step for me.  Optics, though.  Optics is really fucking cool.  Optics deals with light and how light travels and bends to create images for our brain.  And reading about it just made sure that I'm about to spend the next couple of days thinking about it.

Insecure Writers support group

     Here I am, putting insecurities out there.
      I've been trying to pick out an insecurity for my first Insecure Writer post.  The question "Am I good enough?"  has been plaguing my mind a lot, but that seems to be a question that bothers most new writers.  This question seeps into other areas of my life and writing though.  I have a high school degree, and I write about physics.  In this area I use the question to push myself to read as many textbooks, lectures, and essays I can on the subject.  This question drives me to find people who are also interested and can share knowledge.  This question brought me here, to see If I could prove myself in front of the largest one way mirror known to man.  It's strange, this Internet;  You can see me, I can see a reflection of me, but I can't see you.
     I'm writing this on a Tuesday night, the night usually held for my studies on thermodynamics.  The reason why I'm not is the next of my insecurities.  Focus.  After being diagnosed with Adult ADHD, I have had to develop rituals and patterns to help get things done.  Is trying to cope with this count?  I know it seems like a major hurtle for writing, jobs or a lot of things.  Ugh.  Again, it seems like I all can do is push through it keep learning to cope with it or use it to my advantage.
     I wish I was smart.  I read like crazy because I feel frustrated that I don't know everything there is to know.  The problems rise when I try to test somethings out in the real world.  Sometimes they are mechanical things, test I perform to study physical principles in the real world.  Sometimes I feel compelled to test psychological principles in the real world.  Don't feel too scared, I only try them when people put me in sales positions.  Stuff like this makes me wonder about myself.
     Yeah, I'm nothing but one big insecurity over here.  Isn't that what attracts me to writing though?  I get to show this side of myself for a change.  In the job world, if I crack and lose my confidence, I slip and fall and lose a good position to someone else. Or I lose my job to lack of control on my part.  In the relationship world, having confidence is seen to be attractive.  Here in the void though, it's wonderful.  Three people follow me.  Do they read any of it?  I don't care.  Here, it seems like I can shout until I go horse.  I'm IrishRedFox, a name and a picture.  I am a shapeless idea.
     This opening up thing?  This thing where I lay here and just write about what bothers me?  It bugs me.  I'm scared that as a writer, I no good.  As a thinker, I want to be better.  And I'm not convinced these insecure moments make me better at either.  There is no research, no experimenting happening.  Maybe taking some time to force my eye inward will help me in long run.  It's forcing me to write, after all.

Yummy fried chicken

     And I'm back.  Ever just have crazy week where you have to tie up some lose ends?  Writing is a relaxant; it creates peace by giving my mind something else to think about.
     So I've been thinking recently that I'll never become famous in the blog world if I keep writing about thermodynamics.  Being the follower, or "second-hander", that I am, I need to do what the "in" crowd is doing.  Today, I'm going to write about food.  Since my camera is in the shop though, you'll need to use my words to imagine a succulent and moist meal.
     Let us discuss the science of frying on todays blog.  Frying is an delicious way to cook anything; it has been said that anything can made exponentially better by how much it is fried.  I myself was raised on fried chicken, mushrooms and pork, and I feel I am a better man for it.
      Do you know the difference between a chemical and physical change in chemistry?  To put us on the same page, I will define it.  A physical change is a change you can go back on, simply put.  Salt water, for instance, is a basic example of a physical change.  You can mix salt and water, but if you increase the temperature of the fluid to its boiling point  you can separate its components.  Specifically, the water becomes vapor and the salt stays behind.  Chemical changes are more permanent; the energy we introduce into the system fuel bonds between molecules.  This is something I wish I could explain to you in simple, easy terms.  Instead, I am going to just send you to this other website.
     But that was the old Aristotle.  The new blog doesn't want to talk about boring science shit.  We want sleek, elegant family friendly pizazz.  I want to know how to fry a turkey as big as my head.
     The first thing you need is a vat.  The next step is to fill the vat with delicious oil.  If you're like me, you're using oil that is more or less at "room temperature".  If you're like my dad, there is a very good chance that this oil is full of impurities.  These two factors are playing against you, amigo.  Even though you might have come across this shiny looking blog in a drunken stupor at three a.m. looking for fried food recipes, you're about to find that you'll have to wait a little longer for the oil to get up to temperature.  The first reason is due due to some mathematical mumbo-jumbo about surface area and heat.   I'm assuming you are using a Bayou Classic fryer, because you buy the first thing that pops up on Google.  In this case, the only part of your oil that is getting direct heat is about 104 square inches.  Compared to the 1350 cubic inches of oil you are trying to heat.  Your two dimensional attempt to heat a three dimensional area makes me laugh.
     After drinking more beer while intensely watching the thermometer, the oil will finally reach a temperature between 180 and 200 degrees Celsius. (Quick!  What is the absolute temperature of your oil?)  At this point, you need to place your whole chicken into the fryer.  If you drop it, there is an excellent chance that 392 degree Fahrenheit oil will splash on your clothes.  That is bad.  You should probably memorize the number for 911 before you start.
     Now for the cooking part.  The combination of energy and time is causing a chemical and physical change in the oil and chicken.  You are now an alchemist, but instead of creating something lame like a philosophers stone, you are creating fried chicken.  Let me say this again:  Fried is way better than regular.  This is mostly due to the process that is going on.
     As energy is applied in the form of heat to the chicken, changes are going on in the molecular level.  In chemistry we learn that this heat will cause the degradation of some molecular structures.  In physics we learn that a increase in temperature causes an increase in movement of molecules.  In the case of protein structures, this increase in entropy is causing the atoms that make up the molecule to shake itself free from its chemical bonds.  As the chemical bonds break down, the energetic atom is now free.
     On a macro level, this break down of bonds is causing fat to leak from the chicken into the oil.  This break down starts at 38 degrees c.  At the temperature we are working at, there is a much higher breakdown of the bonds, causing a much higher fat loss.  This release of the fat into the oil is causing the oil to go through its own changes, the most significant of which is causing the boiling point to increase due to the increase of carbons. This increase in the boiling point means you can raise the oil to even higher temperatures, causing a faster cooking time and crispier skin.
     This higher temp also supplies more thermal energy to break stronger bonds.  Since it has the energy to break stronger bonds, the atoms and molecules release have the energy to create stronger bonds.  At this point, people will begin to argue that many of the chemicals created are unhealthy.  They are also savory, and can create visually appealing changes.  As your chicken begins to brown, you know it's ready.  Stick a thermometer in it.  If it's reached an internal temp of 71 degrees Celsius, then you have created enough heat to kill off any dangerous bacteria.
     Well, looks my foray into the cooking blog world didn't go so well.  I must say that the more I do this, the more my tolerance goes up for studying.  Hopefully I'm getting better at explaining this.  If anyone is out there, feel free to comment.       One last thing I want to mention.  As I was researching this, I came across an article on raw foods.  The first thing I will say is this: wash your foods.  As was stated above, the increase in temperature causes the break down of chemical bonds and the formations of new chemicals.  If there is any foreign substances present, logically speaking this introduces more elements and could cause the formation of very unhealthy chemicals.  I'm not sold on the idea of vegan-ism or the raw food movement, but it does bring up a good point about cooking pesticides.  I'm going to read the research it cites.  For now, au revoir to all of my imaginary friends in the void.




This article was inspired by this paper

Busy week.  Ended one job, moved, and started another in the span of 24 hours.  I want to post something about the number e and some more about thermodynamics though.
     
   

Thoughts before bed

     Here I lay, a geek that needs to wake up early.  I piss away the hours and feed my insomnia by drafting my blog post, reading the works of the scientific masters, and thinking about C.P. Snow.
     C.P. Snow was recently introduced to me as I scoured the Internet for works on entropy.  Tonight I am reading "The Two Cultures", which seems to be his most referenced work.  This post is not about the essay, mainly because I'm only two pages into it at the moment and really need to head to bed soon so I can wake up early tomorrow.  Writing fills some strange indescribable need, and it helps clarify thoughts.
     What I've read so far has got me thinking.  He's said that there is a widening gap between the scientific intellectuals and the literary intellectuals.  This seems to be everyones focus, so references to the book end here.  However, I want to talk about art and science.
     Sometimes, it seems that so many groups of thought can not get along.  Christians who believe in the big-bang start by saying "Now I know it sounds odd. . ."  Apparently, since I study science, I can't believe in ghosts and spirits.  I read abstracts and scientific papers, but they certainly are not "good literature."
     The funny thing is, artists and writers are why I got into science.  My favorite artist in high school was M.C. Escher because his art was based on math and logic.  If it wasn't for the work of Arthur C. Clarke, I may not have gotten back into science at all.  My first "teachers" after dropping out of college were webcomics like "Irregular Webcomics", SMBC, and XKCD.  Sometimes, when I want to look for inspiration, I watch Vihart on youtube.  If my one and only exposer to science was traditional schooling, I would be the most boring person in the world.
     The more I read, the more I find.  Today, while reading James Maxwell, I was introduced to Lucretius, a roman philosopher who wrote a large poem outlining the works of the Greek masters.
     For the most part, popular culture confuses scientific principles. For every Jules Verne, there are a hundred or so authors explaining how to improve your life by using the many-worlds interpretation to propel yourself to a world.  Trying to sift through them to get to the facts is a god-damn chore.  Don't forget about the people who do understand the theories, but present them to push their own agendas, political or religious.
     It is to easy to get cynical.  Too many people try to paint pictures of an "Us vs Them" view of life.  I see as many people working together as I see people fighting.  For now I'll ignore the motivations; I want to sleep tonight, not hate people.  Art helps progress.  The best can use it as a tool to communicate ideas to everyone.  These ideas can further understanding and help form new ideas.
    When stuff starts to look cliché, it is time to sleep.  Goodnight all of you beautiful shapes in the void.

Fire on high!

 

The deeper I go into Thermodynamics, the more it begins to look like a wonderland.

In the past, I've mechanics explain to me the principles of physics using engines as an example. They could do this without using math or any advanced physics speak, but they still explained it perfectly. We can learn physics without math, especially if we spend 10,000 hours working with the laws in the physical world. The math is doorway to a different world, however; a Narnia or Wonderland where we can learn how to control what those laws can do. Math is the language we use to share the workings of the world, and we can use it create and discover new things.

Math can be a terrifying sight to the newcomer though. It's full of things like imaginary numbers, logarithms, and differential equations. Statistical Mechanics is no different really. I'm focusing today on Boltzmann's entropy equation, which is the product of a constant and the natural logarithm of probability. Feel free to scratch your head.

Ludwig Boltzmann was one the first people to give real weight to the idea of atoms. In works like Statistical Mechanics, he discusses how large complex mechanisms are made up of smaller individual processes. This lead to the idea that something like entropy was the result of the random movements of sub-atomic particles. He derived his equation entropy is equal to k(lnW) to explain the motion of this particles. K is what is now called Boltzmann's constant, W is the potential movement of the particles, and ln is a natural logarithm. Now everybody in the room say it with me: WTF? It's a logarithm of probability? Seriously? Shit.

This is that scary thing I talked about earlier. After staring at this for a couple of weeks now, I can say that logarithms are not hard if you understand exponents. Log 10 is equal to 1. Another way to say this is 10 to the first power is equal to 10. ln is a natural log, so instead of base 10, it's base of e.

Now that you have a very basic rundown on logarithms, it's kind of easy to see why we need it for entropy. If entropy increases due to energy, and some of the increase in energy is due to entropy, then the growth of entropy is exponential. This exponent is dependent on the potential movement of molecules. It is potential because we have no way of predicting their exact movements as the energy increases. It's that drunken walk in probability. What I'm trying to get at is this: the growth is exponential due to the crazy movements of some sub-atomic particles. We find this exponent by taking the log of their potential energy.

OK, deep breath. The total entropy comes when you multiply this exponent with Boltzmann's constant. The constant is the relationship of of absolute temperature and kinetic energy in a molecule of a perfect gas. But really, it's (1.3807 times 10 to the negitive 23 power) joules per kelvin. Isn't that simple? If you just combine all these factors, you can chart the growth of entropy of an isolated system.

Back up a moment, isolated system? Yeah that's right, isolated system. The reason why you should be cursing Boltzmann and physics right now is because a truly isolated system is theortical. Boltzmann even says that in his paper. There is always another system that heat transfer is going on with, usually it's air. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why physics frustrates me sometimes. The equations that meant to be used with real things are based on theoretical things. I'm gonna stop and lie down before my brain explodes.

I can't stay mad though. This hobby helps my understanding of the world. I wonder if this writings will help anyone else.