Study at Reykjavik University



Views:13423|Rating:4.84|View Time:3:22Minutes|Likes:155|Dislikes:5
Our international students describe their RU experiences.

Reykjavik University, 2017

Reykjavik University is very closely
connected to the industry of Iceland. This gives our students a unique opportunity in
a very close-knit, advanced, developed industrial society to have access to industry, specialists and
opportunities that very few universities can offer. I really like the place. Everybody is very nice
and is always willing to help you. I selected Iceland mainly because
of Iceland itself, because of the nature. But on the other hand the
school is also very good. It’s a very high
energy environment. We have geothermal and
we also have a lot of water because it rains a lot,
hence hydropower. And there is
also a lot of wind. It’s an opportunity for me to learn a number of
innovative renewable energy technologies and be able to utilize
them when I go back home. In corporate finance we are few people,
small classes and a lot of discussions. A lot of interaction between students and teachers.
So it has a personal feel to it. Here in the computer science department
there is a very advanced course Here in the computer science department
there is a very advanced course for game design and virtual environments.
So that’s the main reason that brought us here. Classes are a lot smaller here and
you have a lot more regular assignments like group work
and presentations. I feel that there is a much more direct
relationship between teacher and student. With much more dialog which
can really help improve your studying. We really sit down with our students
and we tailor the program to each student. Our primary purpose is to educate the
specialists and the leaders of the future. I’m working in the subfield of mathematics
called combinatorics and I work with quite simple
mathematical objects. We’re teaching the computer how to prove
things about these mathematical objects. This is very new. You have study spaces
you have lecture halls and you also have a very nice
library where I study a lot. I think it’s really advanced, a lot of
access to innovative and modern stuff that really makes learning
and studying easier. It’s been really nice. We have met
a lot of different people and we are always doing
something. We have full schedules. We live in the capital and
there is always something to do a lot of cultural events, dancing and places
to meet people and just hang out. At one point it was
a hard decision for me. But when I came here then I knew it was the
right decision. So I’m very happy here. Something that I really liked
was that it was Iceland. So it was perfect, I could study and come
to an amazing place at the same time.

Free Energy Experiment Using DC Bulb _ New Science Project



Views:307495|Rating:4.10|View Time:10:37Minutes|Likes:1883|Dislikes:416
Free Energy Experiment Using DC Bulb _ New Science Project,
for more Information Visit our Site:

#free_energy #science_projects #electric_field #engineering #tesla

The Real Meaning of E=mc² | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios



Views:3505879|Rating:4.80|View Time:10:24Minutes|Likes:47363|Dislikes:1959
Want to ask some sort of crazy question about Space?:
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: facebook.com/pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit:
Support us on Patreon!

Help translate our videos!

Let us know what topics you want to learn more about:

You’ve probably known OF E=mc² since you were born, and were also probably told that it meant that it proved Mass equaled Energy, or something along those lines. BUT WAIT. Was E=mc² explained to you properly? Mass equalling energy is mostly true, but E=mc² actually describes a much more interesting, and frankly mind-blowing aspect of reality that likely wasn’t covered in your high school physics class. Join Gabe on this week’s episode of PBS Space Time he discusses THE TRUE MEANING OF E=mc²

Extra Credit:

Einstein’s 1905 E=mc^2 paper (English translation):

(more modern notation)

Veritasium: Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson

—————————————-­­­­­­­­­­­——————————­-

Comments:

Ryan Brown

David Shi

UndamagedLlama2

Jay Perrin

jancultis

Music:
Movement 3 – Janne Hanhisuanto (
miracle – slow (
Secret Society – Logical Disorder (
Saw Slicing – Patternbased (
Dr Dreidel – Patternbased (
Earth Breath – Human Terminal (
Pinball Beat – Patternbased (
Heisse Luft – Thompson and Kuhl (

New SpaceTime episodes every Wednesday!

Hosted by Gabe Perez-Giz
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)

Capacitance – Lecture 5 | Class 12 | Unacademy JEE | LIVE DAILY | IIT JEE Physics| Jayant Nagda



Views:4915|Rating:4.86|View Time:55:5Minutes|Likes:416|Dislikes:12
To download notes, click here NOW:
SUBSCRIBE to Unacademy PLUS at:
Use Special Code :- “JEELIVE”
(To avail 10% DISCOUNT)

To know more about Unacademy Plus, watch this video:

Talk to us on TELEGRAM App- (First Install the Telegram App)
Enter the group using the link on your BROWSER:

Capacitor is a device that stores electrostatic field energy. The property of a capacitor that characterizes its ability to store energy is called it’s Capacitance

Unacademy Plus Subscription Benefits: –
1. Learn from your favourite teacher
2. Dedicated DOUBT sessions
3. One Subscription, Unlimited Access
4. Real time interaction with teacher
5. You can ask doubts in live class
6. Limited students
7. Download the videos & watch offline

For any queries or doubts, please click:

#Plus_Subscription_In_Description #UnacademyJEE #jeelivedaily

Richard Dawkins' pendulum ball demo – Royal Institution Christmas Lectures 2016: Preview – BBC Four



Views:16099|Rating:4.85|View Time:2:29Minutes|Likes:263|Dislikes:8
SUBSCRIBE to the OFFICIAL BBC YouTube channel:
LAUNCH BBC iPlayer to access Live TV and Box Sets:

Programme website: The Christmas lecturer Saiful Islam introduces Richard Dawkins to reenact his famous pendulum ball demo, this time with a twist.

#bbc

9-11 Judy Wood Free Energy Hutchison Effect WTC Steel Anomaly



Views:679|Rating:4.88|View Time:22:Minutes|Likes:80|Dislikes:2
Judy Wood has seen John Hutchison’s free energy gizmo, and as a devoted follower of his philosophy, wants to share the power of abstract creative thinking to understand 9-11 as a demonstration of free energy technology that will progress our evolutionary thrust. or is it a weapon? a weapon means we were attacked, right? wait, are we all government disinfo plants? is she part of some big magic show, making us believe a burnt plastic tube is solid iron? does she really not understand the concept of repeatability of a science experiment? the Hutchison Effect is what happens when humans believe energy is free so why bother with real science or making sense.

Introduction to Fluid Power Systems (Full Lecture)



Views:55641|Rating:4.83|View Time:43:31Minutes|Likes:450|Dislikes:16
In this lesson we’ll define fluid power systems and identify critical fluid power properties, pressure, flow rate, and valve position, and discuss how these properties must be controlled and measured by a fluid power system to control the strength, speed, and direction of resultant mechanical output. We’ll introduce basic fluid power devices, discuss their general purpose, and draw their associated schematics. We’ll differentiate between hydraulic and pneumatic systems, compare and contrast the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of fluid power systems with other systems and, finally, reacquaint ourselves with the concept of energy, power, and efficiency as applied to fluid power systems. (Full Lecture)

Copyright information: Use this lecture. Use it at home, at work, or at school. Put it in a playlist, embed it in a website, share it with your coworkers, family, friends, and enemies. I made this lecture and posted it on YouTube so users everywhere have free access to this information.

This being said, this YouTube channel is meant to be the sole point of distribution for this lecture. Users are not authorized to download it, change it, or charge for access. Don’t even think of downloading it and uploading to your own channel and pretending it’s your own work. Not cool. Use this lecture and let your friends know this free resource exists.

Use it. Don’t steal it. Be cool.

For more FREE online technical training check out the following playlists available at the bigbadtech channel:

Basic Electronics: DC Circuit Analysis

Basic Electronics: Single Phase AC Circuit Analysis

Basic Electronics: 3 Phase AC Circuit Analysis

Hydraulics

Motor Control

Motors and Generators

Motor Drives/Variable Frequency Drives (VFD)

Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs)

good day and welcome to Big Bad tech I'm your instructor Jim Pytel today's topic of discussion is an introduction of fluid power systems our objective is to introduce fluid power systems discuss the advantages applications and characteristics of such systems additionally we'll reacquaint ourselves with a concept of energy power and efficiency is applied to fluid power systems the purpose of a fluid power system is to perform work that cannot be accomplished by an unaided human or to perform a task more efficiently with respect to time consider the act of some bad guy making a hero dig his own grave the movies make it seem like excavating a six-foot hole is an easy hour-long affair I'm the only slightly dusty hero still has enough energy to do a backflip out of the grave cut off the bad guys head with a shovel and sidekick is headless body into the grave this is nonsense not only is the act of digging a hole a lot dirtier than movies suggest anybody that digs a hole that big is going to be puking out of their eyes exhausted by the time they're done not to mention the bad guy it's going to get so bored waiting for the hole to get dug he's probably going to opt for the shallow grave option and shoot the dirty tired hero two hours into the day long process consider however a bad guy equipped with an excavator which can move as much dirt in one scoop as an unaided human can in one day problem solved bang world conquest is laid at your doorstep all thanks to fluid power who needs superhero powers when you can uproot trees lift trucks and punch holes through solid steel with fluid power a fluid power system is one in which a fluid either a liquid or gas in contrast to electrical or mechanical means is used to transmit power from one location to another fluid power systems come in two notable forms fluid power systems using liquid are called hydraulic systems and fluid power systems using gas are called pneumatic systems hydraulic and pneumatic systems share some common prop however there are important differences between them both liquids and gases are states of matter differing from solids and that they take the shape of their container liquids for the purposes of this lecture series are to be considered incompressible a certain mass of liquid occupies the same volume regardless of the available space or how much you squeeze it gases however are compressible meaning they can contract then expand to fill containers of differing volumes the same mass of gas can fit in a tiny capsule if compressed as well as a large balloon if allowed to expand hydraulic systems most often use petroleum-based oil whereas pneumatic systems use compressed air from the environment this is to suggest that oil costs money and air for the time being is plentiful and inexpensive oil however is a self lubricating means of transmission and serves to minimize the friction between moving surfaces in addition to other functions air in contrast must be conditioned to do so both fluid mediums in addition to transferring power serve to lubricate and seal clearances between dynamically moving surfaces and transfer heat due to in efficiencies note that excessive heat can progressively damage and change the chemical nature of oil such that the oil itself can be considered a contaminant to the system the fluid in a fluid power system is an essential component later lectures will discuss fluid properties and conditioning needs hydraulic systems are ordinarily characterized as being capable of performing medium to heavy duty applications whereas pneumatic systems are for light to medium duty applications liquid because of its inherent incompressible nature means actuators like cylinders extend smoothly and continuously and when in position remain so gas because of its inherent compressible nature means actuators extend inconsistently in comparison and when popped into position are spongy and soft this in my personal opinion is the principal advantage of hydraulic systems in comparison to all other systems be they electrical mechanical or pneumatic hydraulic systems in addition to being capable of lifting large loads have incredible holding power liquid being incompressible in nature means that once pressurized flow enters a cylinder and lifts and applied load any fluid trapped inside that cylinder may as well be replaced with a solid object if it is not allowed to leave the cylinder pneumatic systems must account for the compressible nature of gas mechanical systems must account for backlash between gears or play between mechanical linkages electrical systems don't really work well in static situations and often can only decelerate objects in the process of actually moving hydraulic systems in contrast are perfectly suited for such static applications want to lift a heavy load and keep it lifted let pressurized flow enter a cylinder and lift the load trap the liquid and forget about it since the trap liquid is incompressible that heavy load isn't going anywhere until you lower it hopefully in a controlled fashion by letting fluid slowly bleed out of the cylinder will discuss flow control methods that allow the controlled descent of a lifted object in later lectures moving on closed hydraulic systems circulate the oil through the system and a returning oil must be filtered conditioned and contained in a reservoir pneumatic systems in contrast simply exhaust the returning air to the atmosphere because hey why not air for the time being is free and you can always get more finally hydraulic systems have a deserved reputation of being dirty dirty greasy oily nasty systems pneumatics in contrast are considerably cleaner a spill in a hydraulic system is an environmental contamination hazard whereas a leak in a pneumatic system is that necessarily environmentally hazard as if this wasn't enough there are flammability concerns with hydraulic oil especially around electricity and high temperatures on a very basic level fluid power systems are power conversion systems where one form of input is changed to fluid power to eventually perform some task fluid power is characterized and controlled by pressure flow rate and valve position among other properties ordinarily the initial conversion to fluid power takes place in a pump we're typically rotational mechanical power characterized by a twisting force called torque and rotational speed is converted to fluid power pumps therefore are mechanical to fluid power converters ordinarily pumps are driven by prime movers like an electric motor or an internal combustion engine themselves also being power converters a motor would convert electrical power to rotational mechanical power and an internal combustion engine would convert the stored chemical energy of old dinosaur bones to mechanical power heat and noise noise noise schematically pumps are ordinarily represented as circles with an arrow pointing in the direction of provided pressurized flow if the arrow is filled in it means it's a hydraulic pump if the arrow isn't filled in it means it's pneumatic air compressor think about it hydraulic systems are filled with dirty oil the oil is black pneumatic systems are filled with clean air the arrow is clear the pump in the case of a hydraulic system ordinarily pumps stored oil from a tank known as a reservoir symbolized by kind of a bathtub looking thing if the reservoir is vented to the atmosphere the bathtub wouldn't have a top if the reservoir is sealed off from the atmosphere and pressurized the bathtub would have a top sometimes the fluid power schematic may include the motor and shaft linked to the pump electric motors are often illustrated as an EM in a circle internal combustion engines are often illustrated as a box inside box both motors and internal combustion engines can be considered prime movers the pump isn't ordinarily directly driven by the prime mover but rather the two shafts are linked via coupling the coupling compensates for misalignment and allows a technician to take the pair apart for maintenance and repair purposes when the prime mover turns the shaft of the pump the pump produces flow measured in units of volume per time ordinarily gallons per minute or liters per minute the load induced opposition to flow is what creates pressure if the pump is just pumping into empty space there's no pressure and to top it off a rapidly expanding pool of oil on the floor while we're still kind of on the subject of pumps let me inform you that to fully truly and holistically comprehend the conversion of mechanical power to fluid power necessitates an understanding of what is producing the torque and rotational speed in the first place this is to suggest that a complete and comprehensive understanding of fluid power systems doesn't begin at the pump but rather at the motor driving the pump keeping in this spirit a complete and comprehensive understanding of motors doesn't begin at the motor but rather at the distribution control systems and electrical Theory behind the motor and on and on and on into infinite chain of causality in the interest of forward progress however I've got to draw a line somewhere so I'm arbitrarily drawing a line right here for the purposes of this lecture series you are hereby authorized to consider everything to the left of this line being mechanical electrical or magical as exactly that pfm pure magic later lectures we'll revisit these crucial points of interaction in greater detail expect me at some point in the future to level with you admit all our previous assumptions are in fact cartoonish simplifications I can't blame you for being mad at me for withholding their information but realize I'm withholding a lot of information for you for two important reasons one it's not important now and two I operate under the kung-fu principle and that I am always entitled to withhold one trick from you lest you come back at a later date and challenge me I quite like your mama continually reserve the right to set you on my knee and spank you regardless of your age or profession moving on as previously mentioned fluid power is characterized by several properties notably pressure flow rate and valve position a fluid power system is only effective if these properties are controlled and measured as will later learn there existed degree of crosstalk between these properties but for now we can make this bold and memorable simplification pressure is strength flow rate is speed and valve position is Direction if you can walk away from this entire lecture series with just this simple understanding I will consider my time having not been spent in vain the principle that largely governs fluid Power Systems is known as Pascal's law which installation states that when force is applied to a confined fluid in a closed system it exerts pressure equally in all directions a large number of introductory fluid power principles can be demonstrated using a pair of syringes linked by a hose when to empty syringes are capped off there is a quantitive air entrapped between the two Pistons this entrapped air is now confined fluid and this is a basic pneumatic system as I push in one of the syringes the entrapped air pushes on the face of the other piston and the other syringe extends air is being employed as a means of power transmission in contrast to mechanical or electrical means the Pistons needn't be in line with one another and could be angular offset from each other as an example as long as they're linked by a passageway gas can be used to transfer power in this simple pneumatic system note the inconsistency with which the pneumatic actuators extend there's a bit of lag in actuation additionally note the sponginess of an actuator supporting a load these observed characteristics are due to the compressible nature of air and something that must be accounted for in a pneumatic system in contrast when the two syringes are filled with water and capped off the entrapped water is now a confined fluid and this is a basic hydraulic system as previously I can push in one syringe and the piston face pushes on the entrapped water and the entrapped water pushes on the face of the other piston and the other syringe extends liquid is being employed as a means of power transmission and contrast and gas mechanical or electrical means as previously the Pistons needn't be in line with one another and could be angular offset from one another as long as the two cylinders remain linked by a passageway liquid can be used to transfer power in this simple hydraulic system in contrast to our previously examined simple pneumatic system note the consistency predictability and regularity with which the hydraulically driven actuators extend there's no lag in actuation additionally note the firmness of a hydraulic actuator supporting a load these observed characteristics are due to the incompressible nature of liquid present a major advantage over pneumatic systems the interest of fairness when a pneumatic system springs a leak it's far easier to clean up than a leak in a hydraulic system note the simple fluid power system examples use cylinder actuators relatively similar in size consider however two different size cylinders forming a force multiplication system one of the principal applications of fluid power that trades distance for force when forces exerted on the smaller piston pressure is exerted on the confined fluid the confined fluid through the passageway it's pressure on the larger piston and it extends with a larger force however due to the area differential between the cylinders the volume displaced in the smaller cylinder only extends the larger cylinder a small distance in a perfectly lossless system energy input equals energy output a small force applied over a long distance equates to a large force applied over a short distance if you want to think of it this way a force multiplication system is the fluid power equivalent of a step-down gearbox at raid speed for torque will examine Pascal's law and force multiplication systems in greater detail in later lectures but for the purpose of this lecture let's quickly define force as a measurable push or pull in units of pounds force or Newtons pressure in contrast is force per unit area as in pounds force per square inch often abbreviated psi or Pascal's where one Pascal is a Newton of force applied over a square meter area is ordinarily expressed in units of square inches or square centimeters the units tell the story quite nicely force equals pressure times area pound force per square inch times square inch yields pound force this is Pascal's law the comparatively small pressure acts in a large area force increases think about a sailboat on a light wind day if you want to go somewhere you need a big sail in contrast on one of those nuking days when fish are being blown out of the water you might need to trim the sails to stay in control or reduce force simply by modifying pressure and functional area one can control the applied force going back to our earlier diagram this implies that the end result of a fluid power system is ordinarily the eventual conversion of fluid power two mechanical power actuators are the business end of a fluid power system where this conversion takes place linear fluid power actuators are known as cylinders cylinders extend and retract with a definable force speed and direction as dictated by the fluid power system pressure flow rate and valve position cylinders are ordinarily represented schematically as one would see then at the stowed x-ray vision and examined in profile pending construction variants the schematic symbol may be modified accordingly rotational fluid power actuators are known as hydraulic motors motors turn clockwise or counter clockwise with a torque and rotational speed as dictated by the fluid power system pressure flow rate and valve position you'll note the hydraulic motor schematic symbol is essentially the opposite of a pump it's an actuator that converts fluid power to rotational mechanical power it's schematic symbol has arrows pointing into it meaning it is consuming fluid power and converting it to rotational mechanical power note if the hydraulic motor is bi-directional ie you can spin two opposite directions we'll have two arrows pointing in opposite directions again the arrows indicate the hydraulic motor is consuming fluid power to our system whereas the arrows in a pump indicate the pump is providing fluid power to our system both these actuators cylinders and motors can be used to lift lower push pull tip tilt turn crush pound or otherwise manipulate a load keep in mind mechanical linkages can modify the initiating motion a linearly actuated hydraulic cylinder can turn or tip a load using a pivoting mount if you step back a bit you can think of a fluid power system just like every other system you've ever looked at there's a power source a means of transmitting the power and a load being manipulated some of you might be like wait a minute hold everything you mean to tell me that a motor converts electrical power into rotational mechanical power a pump converts rotational mechanical powering the fluid power the fluid power system controls and measures pressure flow and valve position just so some dumb hydraulic motor can convert fluid power back into rotational mechanical power why didn't you just use an electric motor in the first place can't an electric motor just convert electrical power straight into rotational mechanical power without all the hoo-ha and hand waving and dirty dirty greasy noisy hydraulics my question exactly there are advantages and disadvantages to be considered every time energy changes form and complexity cost and efficiency are at the forefront of these considerations systems need more complexity like Portland Oregon needs another Thai food cart with each energy transition losses occur troubleshooting opportunities magnifying losses in fluid power systems include but are not limited to heat unintended pressure drops friction noise leaks and resistance and hoses piping and fittings due to kinks twists and bends will discuss efficiency in a moment however complexity and accounting for inefficiencies can be an acceptable trade-off if one form of power transmission presents notable advantages over others when it comes to rotational actuators the electric motor is my weapon of choice I am NOT going to build a high range electric car driven by a hydraulic motor this being said an excavator with a fluid power system driven by an internal combustion engine can power rotational actuators in a harvester attachment to cut limb and manipulate a huge tree without the necessity of powering an electric motor I'm equally a huge fan of hydraulic cylinders when it comes to linear actuators I'm not going to lift a bridge with an electrical solenoid a comparatively weak linear electrical actuator best suited for small-scale movements with very limited holding ability this being said I am going to use an electrical solenoid instead of a huge high-pressure hydraulic cylinder to close a tiny electrical switch in a relay these examples suggest that there are applications in scales befitting one form of power transmission over the other fluid power systems particularly hydraulic systems are known for their ability to manipulate or lift large loads and keep them lifted with no additional expenditure of energy fluid power systems in contrast to electrical systems are also known to have lower initial cost this does however come at a price when power systems are notoriously noisy they have cleanliness and environmental concerns and making up for the lower initial investment cost require routine maintenance that if neglected can lead to systemic failure the progressive decay of oil exposed to excess heat is a classic example additionally fluid power systems come with unique safety concerns principally the ever-present possibility of catastrophic ruptures in pinhole leaks associated with high pressures the slip trip and fall hazards presented by spilled hydraulic oil and the very real possibility of having valuable portions of your Anatomy crushed to a pulp eju between an irresistable moving hydraulic actuator and an immovable object hybrids of different systems exists for the purposes of mitigating disadvantages and maximizing advantages consider an electrically controlled hydraulic system where a high pressure hydraulic cylinder is controlled by a precise and responsive electrical control system astounding speed and accuracy can be achieved all without sacrificing the immense lifting and holding capability of hydraulics as I like to think of electrically controlled hydraulic systems hydraulics are the muscle and electrical control is the brain but those forms and methods that Excel in one particular function perform that function to the exclusion of all others ultimately regardless of the flavor different aspects of a larger system work together toward the of ailment of a goal returning to our previous discussion on fluid power properties let's bring freely discuss how these properties are controlled and measured by a fluid power system to perform a task pressure the property that influences the actuation strength of a fluid power system is largely governed by pressure control valves pressure control valves include but are not limited to pressure relief valves sequence valves counterbalance valves pressure reducing valves and unloading valves don't bother differentiating between these very similar-looking schematic symbols right now because we'll revisit each of these pressure control valves in a later lecture each pressure control valve performs a specific function that ultimately influences the strength of the fluid power system pressure is measured using a pressure gauge or manometer symbolized by almost a clock looking dial with a needle that points at the pressure reading pressure switches and pressure sensors sometimes called pressure transducers perform automatic monitoring of pressure for electrically controlled fluid power systems we'll examine these measurement devices in greater detail in later lectures flow rate the property that influences the actuation speed of a fluid power actuator is governed largely by the pump and prime mover combination if a pump has a certain volumetric displacement per revolution the prime mover can vary rotational speed up or down to change flow rate similarly if the prime mover remains at a fixed constant speed a variable displacement pump can vary the displacement per revolution to change resultant flow rate flow control valves can then be used to throttle flow rate down from there flow control valves ordinarily feature a restricted orifice that can be varied opened or closed as conditions dictate flow rate is measured using a flow meter symbolized by a baseball looking thing flow meters are ordinarily direction and gravity dependent meaning that flow to be measured must come in the indoor and out the outdoor if the flow meter is returned your data additionally some flow meters must be vertically mounted such the flow rate goes upwards through them flow meter intended to be mounted vertically into out bottom to top won't read accurately if it's mounted on its side upside down or if the flow is routed through it backwards a needle slides up and down on a scale indicating flow rate in the desired unit additionally flow switches and flow sensors also exist to automatically monitor flow rate for electrically controlled fluid power systems finally valve position the property that influences actuation direction of a fluid power actuator is governed largely by check valves and directional control valves check valves are one-way valves that allow fluid flow in one direction but disallow it in another the schematic symbol for a check valve looks like a ball and a seat because that's exactly what it is in the block position the ball is forced onto the seat and no fluid can flow in the flow direction the ball is forced off the seat and fluid can flow directional control valves are valves that can be shifted from position to position or pressurized flow P is routed to one actuator port either A or B the opposite port is routed to tank T or in the case of a pneumatic system e for exhaust the schematic symbol for a directional control valve includes a means of positioning the valve for a deactivated position ordinarily a spring a means of actuate the valve either manually or electrically with a solenoid a finite number of positions the valve can be placed in and a number of passageways that can be connected or disconnected based on the position as a preview of how a directional control valve operates consider this three position spring centered manually actuate a directional control valve with a closed center a straight-through position a cross-connect position when the valve is the spring centered closed position the hydraulic cylinder neither extends nor retracts given liquid is an incompressible medium the position could be used to quasi indefinitely hold a load and position if an operator manually shifted the directional control valve to the straight through position pressurized flow is routed to the a port and the B port is dumped to tank in this application the cylinder would extend the fan operator manually shifted the directional control valve to the cross-connect position pressurized flow would be routed to the B port and the a port is dumped tank in this application the cylinder would retract in addition to operators manually monitoring and operating fluid power systems consider electrically controlled fluid power systems that automatically monitor position with the use of mechanical limit switches magnetic proximity switches and position transducers that output a voltage or current signal proportional to position automated systems do not necessitate constant human supervision later lectures will examine fluid power schematics directional control valves flow control valves pressure control valves and much much more in greater detail I'm just trying to give you a big picture up front and give you an idea where we're eventually headed might seem like you're drinking from a fire hose right now but trust me it'll all make sense in time before we close up shop let's do a quick review of energy power and efficiency as applied to fluid power systems a vapor I've missed in my duties as an instructor if this lecture didn't include any tedious illustrative example problems consider this a light warm-up for later exercises because I hate for you to pull a muscle just when we're starting to have fun recall from the energy and power lecture from way back in the basic electronics one DC circuit analysis playlist that energy among its many forms can be considered as a force expressed for a distance linear exertions of energy should be easy take a force in units of pounds force or Newtons and multiply it times distance either feet or meters the result is energy either in units of foot-pounds force or joules where Joule is one nuna force expressed for a distance of 1 meter consider a hydraulic system tasks with lifting cuban-american star pitbull on stage way back in 2004 mr. worldwide at that time weighed about 180 pounds let's say the system had to lift him a height of 6 feet if energy is force times distance this means the system exerted 180 pounds force times 6 feet or 1080 foot pounds force of energy which brings us to the present day after a couple years living la Vida Walmart let's say pitbull now represents a 230 pound load and still needs to be lifted a height of 6 feet if energy is again force times distance the hydraulic system now needs to exert 230 pounds force times 6 feet or 1380 foot pounds force of energy a larger force expressed over the same distance required more energy it makes sense power in contrast is the time rate consumption or production of energy power is energy over time a visual representation of this 3 variable relationship using a triangle it's extremely useful let's say the hydraulic system in 2004 needed to get the 180 pound pitbull to the stage 6 feet away in a matter of 2 seconds power is energy over time 1080 foot pounds force over 2 seconds yields a power input 540 foot pounds force per second the common power unit the horsepower happens to be 550 foot-pounds force per second and a simply unit conversion shows us that this task requires at minimum just shy of 1 horsepower to accomplish it in the time desired consider this same sub 1 horsepower system limited to producing 540 foot-pounds force per second being used to lift mr. world wider on stage in the present day how long would it take this system to lift a 230 pound load a distance of 6 feet if power is energy over time a simple algebraic rearrangement suggests that time is energy over or substituting in our given values we find this system would take approximately 2.6 seconds to accomplish this same task it makes sense a larger force expressed over the same distance took slightly longer to do so when our output was limited to a fixed value what if however we really did need to lift him on stage in exactly two seconds in the present day what is the power requirement for this task again power is energy over time one thousand three hundred and eighty foot-pounds force over two seconds yields a necessary power input of at least 690 foot-pounds force per second and makes sense a larger force expressed the same distance over the same time span necessitated a more powerful system to do so converting this value to horsepower yields a value of approximately 1.3 horsepower if you want to you can convert this to nine hundred and thirty five point nine watts because one horse power equals 550 foot-pounds force per second and one horsepower also equals 746 watts as I explained in the unit conversion lecture the horsepower despite its antiquated and somewhat inaccurate measurement of a true horses power it's actually quite a handy means of converting between these two commonly used unit systems if you're tracking you should be able to knock out the following example problems with no delay consider a lift system in a garage that must live of five thousand six hundred thirty pound pickup truck a height of five feet to perform some maintenance how much energy must be put into this system by all means pause the lecture and take your best shot at this energy equals Force Times distance five thousand six hundred and thirty pounds force Express a distance of five feet yields twenty eight thousand one hundred and fifty foot-pounds force of energy let's say it took this lift and agonizing twelve seconds to accomplish this task how powerful is this system power is energy over time twenty eight thousand one hundred fifty foot-pounds force over twelve seconds yields a power input of approximately two thousand three hundred forty five point eight foot-pounds for per second if we wanted to convert this to horsepower or watts a simple unit conversion shows us that this necessitates approximately a 4.3 horsepower system or equivalently a 3.2 kilowatt system what if the garage wanted to upgrade repair or replace the lift such that it could accomplish the same task in a matter of only 8 seconds again power is energy over time the task has not changed a five thousand six hundred and thirty pound object must still be left at a height of five feet the only demand is that it now be done quicker this will obviously necessitate a more powerful system twenty eight thousand one hundred fifty foot-pounds force over eight seconds yields approximately three thousand five hundred and eighteen point eight foot-pounds force per second if we wanted to convert this to horsepower watts the simple unit conversion shows us that this necessitates approximately six point four horsepower or equivalently a four point eight kilowatt system note those illustrated example problems neglected any complexity and inefficiencies we previously discussed consider the following simplification of the cascaded nature of power conversion motor converts electrical power to rotational mechanical power the pump converts rotational mechanical power to fluid power and the cylinder actuator converts fluid power to linear mechanical power each conversion process can be modeled as a stage which receives input and produces output of which a portion is consider loss due to in efficiencies consider our first scenario in which the lift took in an agonizing 12 seconds to lift the five thousand six hundred thirty pound truck five feet the system yielded a power output of two thousand three hundred and forty five point eight foot-pounds force per second let's say the cylinder actuator and fluid power system is 86% efficient at converting fluid power to linear mechanical power accounting for any leakage friction heat loss restriction and pipes fittings or bends and any unintended pressure drops across valves let's say the pump is only sixty percent efficient at converting rotational mechanical power to fluid power counting for any leakage play in the coupling and friction let's say the motor is 88% efficient at converting electrical power to rotational mechanical power accounting for heat losses in the windings and friction this cascaded system accounting for inefficiency must therefore have far more power input to it if it is to yield the necessary 2345 point 8 foot-pounds force per second power output recall that efficiency like most three variable relationships can be visualized with the use of a triangle efficiency is a ratio typically expressed as a percentage of output over input we know our desired output and we know the efficiency of each stage it is a trivial algebraic manipulation to solve for input where power input equals output over efficiency substituting in our observed quantities we find the fluid power system converts only 2345 point 8 foot-pounds force per second of the available 2727 point 7 foot-pounds force per second to usable linear mechanical power 14 percent of which is considered a loss to the system similarly we find that the pumpkin burns only two thousand seven hundred twenty seven point seven foot-pounds force per second of the available 4546 point two foot-pounds force per second of rotational mechanical power to usable fluid power the remaining 40 percent of this input is considered a loss to the system finally we find that the motor has converted only 4546 point to foot-pounds force per second of the available 5160 six point one foot-pounds force per second of electrical power to usable rotational mechanical power the remaining 12 percent of this input is considered a loss to the system all in all this system needs to consume 5160 six point one foot-pounds force per second of electrical power or to put the city unit more commonplace for electrical calculations approximately seven kilowatts of electrical power to produce the requisite 2345 point-eight foot-pounds force per second were approximately 3.2 kilowatts of linear mechanical power this is to suggest that the whole system is 88% times 60 percent times 86 percent only approximately 45 percent efficient given the pump is a weak link in our system consider not an expensive upgrade of this system but rather a troubleshooting and maintenance procedure that identifies and corrects a misalignment or a damaged coupling between the motor and pump shaft such that this stage now converts 80 percent of the rotational mechanical power to fluid power let's work through this example problem the opposite direction from input to output operating order the assumption that the motor still consumes approximately seven kilowatts of electrical power due to in efficiencies only 4540 6.2 foot-pounds force per second is converted to rotational mechanical power an algebraic rearrangement of our efficiency relationship suggests that power output is equal to efficiency times input substituting in our given efficiency and input values it shows that the repaired pump stage now outputs approximately three thousand six hundred thirty-seven foot-pounds force per second of fluid power the 86 percent efficient fluid power system insulin actuator in turn converts this to three thousand one hundred twenty seven point eight foot-pounds force per second of linear mechanical power given that the original task took 28 thousand one hundred and fifty foot-pounds force of energy the fact that time is energy over power it can be shown that this repaired system takes only nine seconds to accomplish the same task it makes sense cascaded system with a more efficient stage yielded quicker results given the same input conditions all right this about wraps up our brief introduction of fluid power systems again this lecture might be injured doctor in nature but it covered a lot of important material in a short period of time I'm encouraging you to rewind review and revisit this lecture as needed in conclusion this lecture took a brief look at fluid power systems we define fluid power systems and identify critical fluid power properties pressure flow rate and valve position and discussed how these properties must be controlled and measured by a fluid power system to control the strength speed and direction of the result of mechanical output we introduced a couple basic fluid power devices discuss their general purpose and drew their associated schematics we differentiated between hydraulic and pneumatic systems comparing a trusted the characteristics Vantage's and disadvantages of fluid power systems with other systems and finally we reacquainted ourselves with the concept of energy power and efficiency as applied to fluid power systems remember to review these concepts as often as you really need to drive at home imagine how well lab will go if you know what you're doing thank you very much for your attention and interest and we'll see you again during the next lecture of our series remember till you lazy that part and about this resource and be sure to check out the Big Bad tech channel for additional resources and updates

Debunking Dr. Judy Wood 9/11 DEW Theory using scientific method



Views:133375|Rating:2.55|View Time:13:27Minutes|Likes:1002|Dislikes:965
Controlled Demolition is the ONLY scientifically proven method for demolishing a building so that it falls into its own footprint at nearly the rate of gravity. The DEW hypothesis has zero experimental evidence. No evidence for the so called “Hutchison Effect”, and no evidence for the development or existence of any such a weapon. It’s all a clever Psy-op meant to distract you from asking the REAL questions, like HOW DID BOMBS GET IN THE TOWERS? and… WHO PUT THEM THERE? Those are dangerous questions which could lead people to truth and indictments, so it’s much safer for the real criminals if every 9/11 “Truther” is out there telling people about space lasers, aliens, and all the other crazy conspiracy shit, which for some reason is also the most popular… Probably because it’s being actively promoted and disseminated by people trying to make sure that everyone is thoroughly propagandized with lies and disinfo (like super advanced crazy exotic secret government directed energy weaponry…) so they will be so baffled by bullshit, they will overlook the simple truth entirely. (or even better reject the real truth and battle against it, like I see the brainwashed peons do in the comment feed daily…)

The scientific method is based the concept of using experiments to prove or disprove a given hypothesis. Dr. Judy Wood in one of her first papers with Dr. Morgan Reynolds put forward the absurd hypothesis that space-based Directed Energy Weapons could have been responsible for the demolition of the WTCs. In this video I go over some of the science behind these technologies and ask for independent experimental proof of the so called “Hutchison Effect” …which has never been independently verified, and looks nothing like the explosive detonations we see during the collapse of the towers…

My 9/11 Page:

This is an excellent article and addresses many of the other issues raised by Dr. Judy Wood that were not included in my video:

Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the chemistry of the nanothermite evidence:

Kevin Ryan’s video of chemistry experiments he conducted where he produces nanothermite:

SAIC involvement in nanothermite ignition technologies:

A more complete version of the Richard Feynman clip I used:

the great Galileo taught us that experiment is the arbitrator of competing hypotheses this is perhaps one of the most important statements in scientific history experimentation gives us the ultimate truth finding tool it is the central thesis of the scientific method you can apply it to virtually anything as the modern genius Richard Feynman once said if it disagrees with experiment it's wrong in that simple statement is the key to find in this video I am putting forth the challenge of experiment to solve the deepening mystery of why three massive steel-framed high-rise buildings endured spontaneous symmetric conclusions collapsing to dust at virtual freefall acceleration the most commonly held explanation is that plane impacts and jet fuel fires weaken the steel structure causing the initial failure which then cascaded out of control to topple the entire building first one and then the other and then building seven several hours later there are several problems with this hypothesis the first being lack of experimental evidence to suggest that a fire induced global collapse of a large steel structure is even possible in 100 years of construction history no large steel structure has ever collapsed from fire yet nearly every single steel frame skyscraper throughout that 100-year history has had a fire at some point during its lifetime on the other hand no skyscraper has ever been deliberately struck by a large airliner before either this seems to complicate the issue until we consider World Trade Center building 7 which wasn't hit by a plane we also must consider that the official theory given for the collapse of the twin towers was not the airplane crash but structural weakening of Steel due to fire there is also the issue of repeatability and the manner in which these buildings collapsed overall the burden of proof for the fire induced collapse hypothesis depends upon repeatability of the experiment not the prestigious credentials of the people who came up with the theory not the fallacy of an argument from ignorance which claims that if you can't prove it wrong it must be right this theory just like any other scientific theory can only be verified by a repeatable experiment scientifically the burden of proof is on the person or group who came up with the theory until then the mas T report is just a 10,000 page guess as Richard Fineman would say it doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guest is it doesn't make a bit about what you are who made the guess or what his name is if it disagrees with experiment wow it's all rhetoric the next hypothesis I'd like to draw attention to is the one that has the most independent scientists architects engineers and physicists supporting it with a signed petition this is the explosive controlled demolition hypothesis although conventional explosives have been ruled out due to lack of noise and seismic evidence most independent researchers are focusing on the physical and chemical evidence found in debris samples of World Trade Center dust dr. Stephen Jones was the first to discover iron-rich microspheres and samples of World Trade Center dust further investigation into the source of these micro spy layered red chips of iron oxide and aluminum the two main ingredients in an incendiary compound known as thermite or nano thermite thermite burns so incredibly hot that can melt straight through the engine block of a car when thermite reacts it produces aluminum oxide and molten hot steel it is conventionally used for welding and melting iron and steel in its November 1935 issue Popular Mechanics explained how the three million pound steel Skyride Tower in Chicago was demolished using thermite to melt through its 10-foot steel leg sections so this seems to be a scientifically legitimate hypothesis we have a chain of evidence from the crime scene leading directly to nano thermite s– we have scientifically verifiable experiments providing that you can demolish steel structures using thermite's and we even have a host of shady suspects who worked inside the World Trade Center buildings with a series of suspicious connections to companies which produce nano thermite including patents on nano thermite demolition devices now another hypothesis has emerged on the scene and has been making waves so to speak this theory has now gained enough attention and seemingly popularity that I felt I need to make a video addressing it after multiple appearances on coast to coast am and other radio programs dr. Judy woods proposal that a wave based interference mechanism related to the Hutchison effect may have been used to demolish the buildings now the biggest problem I run into and I try to talk to physicists or anyone else about the Hutchison effect is the issue of experimental reproducibility it definitely seems intuitively possible to produce these types of effects using some sort of molecular or mantra magnetic interference and with dr. Woods PhD background an area of expertise in material science and interferometry I'd like to see some experiments performed and papers published on this in order to give it more scientific credibility all I've seen from dr. woods so far is a colorful picture book which continuously stresses the need to look at evidence in order to determine exactly what happened at the World Trade Center I will agree that we have to look at evidence but often times two different people can look at the same piece of evidence and draw very different conclusions also evidence is not proof proof is simply how much evidence is needed in order to prove something to a specific individual for some people all the evidence in the world isn't proof debunkers for example and for others the tiniest piece of circumstantial evidence works as proof so we have to be careful take for instance the microscopic fragments of aluminum and iron oxide which nano chemists and other experts have determined to be nano thermite in the World Trade Center dust now an in her book and on her website and on coast to coast am several times I've heard doctor would repeat the claim that these nano particulates of aluminum and iron oxide were actually byproducts of the Hutchison effect which turned the buildings into dust thus producing nano particulates of building materials which just appeared to look like nano thermite she also claims that the nano thermite evidence is just a distraction from the real truth about the Hutchison effect in the use of free energy technology on 911 but like any good skeptical scientific researcher we must also consider the opposite possibility and most importantly demand proof for such claims until I see some experiments or peer-reviewed scientific papers which can take structural steel separate out the manganese and carbon from the ally and rapidly oxidate the leftover iron and solidify it into a grid like matrix which resembles the nano-thermite particles found in the World Trade Center dust then I will continue to remain skeptical that such an effect is even possible Kevin Ryan has videos of chemistry experiments he conducted where he produces nano thermite in his experiments he requires the use of an organic compound which forms a matrix in order for the iron oxide and aluminum to adhere to again I'm not sure how such a feat could be accomplished in midair using lasers one thing I am sure of is that lasers can be used to ignite nano thermite in fact SAIC the company who developed this laser ignition technology also helped to destroy the evidence from ground zero and helped to author the NIST report so all in all I've given you my scientific overview of the three competing hypotheses on the surface we have the official government sponsored guess that fire was the only available mechanism and therefore a fire must have brought down all three skyscrapers on 9/11 even though it is well-known that fire has never caused the complete catastrophic failure of a steel skyscraper and terrorist groups such as al Qaeda often use explosives in their attacks the government investigation into 9/11 never thought to test for the presence of explosives despite that this is standard protocol for normal fire investigations to test for explosives or accelerants the government never tested for them and instead illegally destroyed all the evidence or so they thought another group of researchers examined dust samples left over from Ground Zero and discovered a chain of evidence leading them to an alternate hypothesis for why the buildings collapsed on 9/11 that a high-tech explosive incendiary known as nano thermite was used to bring about the deceptive demolition of World Trade Centers 1 2 & 7 deceptive because nano thermite doesn't create the loud bangs or bright flashes of conventional demolition explosives and its constituents and byproducts appear similar to normal building materials and lastly we have the hypothesis championed by dr. judy would a violent opponent of the nano-thermite evidence who instead insists that the towers were vaporized to dust by an undocumented unproven effect which has never been reproduced in a laboratory and has no scientific credibility to substantiate it in addition to the difficulty in elaborating on how such an effect could have been produced is the issue of how it was deployed one of dr. Woods hypotheses is a space-based weapon powered by free energy another undocumented and unproven phenomenon given the time windows separating each of the destruction events at the World Trade Center these couldn't have come from a single satellite-based weapon in regular orbit so either there's two of these massive satellites orbiting Earth or they had one in geostationary orbit over the equator firing a beam down at a steep angle over lower Manhattan there's also the issue of timing and precision look at any video of the buildings collapsing and ask yourself what would be required to reproduce these events exactly as they happened several thousand major structural components would need to be severed in exactly the right manner within fractions of a second of one another even if the Hutchison effect was a proven technology which I don't deny and it still could turn out to be then how is it deployed with such precision and timing why did people who report explosions in the buildings before the planes hit I've heard Judy would try to explain away all the multiple reports of explosions with her Hutchinson effect hypothesis using the example of an egg in a microwave exploding without the use of explosives but if the Hutchison effect was active before the first plane even hit then how can it also explain the precision with which the towers came down all of this seems to me as a way to overcomplicate what really happened on 9/11 and distract and confuse anyone trying to unravel the mystery Judy would has attacked all the evidence pointing to nano thermite and attempted to explain it all away in terms of some exotic effect which has never been experimentally reproduced or scientifically verified many of the pictures used in her book and on her web site indicate irregular heating burning and warping of various materials which she then posits could only have been produced by an exotic and unproven mechanism I would suggest that many of these characteristics are consistent with PI plastic flow damage seen in volcanic eruptions and could have just as easily been produced by superheated exploded steel and concrete using nano thermite take this picture for instance the car is only burned on the top half if you think about a cloud of superheated gas expanding and rolling outwards from the collapsing buildings the gas inside the middle of the pyroclastic flow will be the hottest but will cool down considerably on the surface of the cloud where it is expanding and coming into contact with surrounding cooler air as the cloud rolls outward over cars like this one the superheated gas at the center will be hot enough to melt the paint while the cooler periphery of the cloud as it rolls across the ground believes the lower half of the car at a much lower temperature than the superheated gas near the middle of the cloud so you see there are alternative explanations for all the material characteristics of debris seen in dr. Woods extensive photo collections which thankfully don't involve wacky analogies to food and kitchen items in one instance dr. wood compares the molten metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before it collapses to the orange color of Cheetos snack food I don't know about you but to me it looks an awful lot like thermite of course that doesn't mean it is thermite just that there isn't any other convincing an alternative explanation which is backed by a verifiable experiment I'm sure we could continue this debate for hours in the meantime feel free to take a look at dr. Judy blood calm as well as the 911 section of alien scientist calm under the conspiracy tab and if you'd like to discuss this topic at length visit alien scientist calm slash forum where unlike YouTube comments you can actually have a detailed discussion and the ability to post links pictures and videos so I'd like to hear your thoughts I've heard some people tell me they think Judy wood is a disinfo agent injecting the movement with bogus theories and an attempt to undermine and ridicule the more serious scientific groups like a 9/11 truth I've also heard that she is part of a PSYOP trying to discredit the nano-thermite evidence and engage people in an endless debate over what happened on 9/11 in order to prevent them from looking at who was behind it people have drawn attention to the fact that she hasn't yet lost her University position like other scientists researchers who have spoken out openly about 9/11 I've heard a lot of different things so let's get this debate going a lien scientist calm slash forum thanks for watching

The Fourth Phase of Water: Dr. Gerald Pollack at TEDxGuelphU



Views:718547|Rating:4.82|View Time:24:15Minutes|Likes:9275|Dislikes:347
Does water have a fourth phase, beyond solid, liquid and vapor?

University of Washington Bioengineering Professor Gerald Pollack answers this question, and intrigues us to consider the implications of this finding. Not all water is H2O, a radical departure from what you may have learned from textbooks.

Pollack received his PhD in biomedical engineering from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. He then joined the University of Washington faculty and is now professor of Bioengineering. His interests have ranged broadly, from biological motion and cell biology to the interaction of biological surfaces with aqueous solutions. His 1990 book, Muscles and Molecules: Uncovering the Principles of Biological Motion, won an “Excellence Award” from the Society for Technical Communication; his more recent book, Cells, Gels and the Engines of Life, won that Society’s “Distinguished Award.” Pollack received an honorary doctorate in 2002 from Ural State University in Ekaterinburg, Russia, and was more recently named an Honorary Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He received the Biomedical Engineering Society’s Distinguished Lecturer Award in 2002. In 2008, he was the faculty member selected by the University of Washington faculty to receive their highest annual distinction: the Faculty Lecturer Award. Pollack is a Founding Fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering and a Fellow of both the American Heart Association and the Biomedical Engineering Society. He is also Founding Editor-in-Chief of the journal, WATER, and has recently received an NIH Transformative R01 Award. He was the 2012 recipient of the Prigogine Medal and in 2013 published his new book: The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

okay thank you water is is quite beautiful to look at and I guess you you probably all know that you're two-thirds water but but you may not know that that that two-thirds translates into ninety nine percent of your molecules think of it 99 percent of your molecules are water so do those your your shoes are carrying around a blob of water essentially no so question is in your sale do those those water molecules actually do something these molecules essentially jobless or do they do something that might be really really interesting and for that matter are we even really sure that water is h2o we read about that in the textbook but is it possible than some water exactly not h2o so these are these are questions that whose answers are actually not as simple as you think they might be in fact we're really in the dark about water we know so little and why do we know so little well you probably think that water is so pervasive and it's such a simple molecule that everything ought to be known about water right I mean you think it's all there well scientists think the same many scientists think Oh water is so simple that everything must be known and in fact that's not at all the case so let me show you to start with a few examples of things about water that we ought to know but we really haven't a clue so here's something that you see every day you see a cloud in the sky and I probably you haven't asked the question how does the water get there why I mean there's only one cloud sitting there and the water is evaporating everywhere why does it go to this cloud for me what you see there the question could you imagine droplets floating on water they expect droplets to to coalesce instantly with the water the droplets persist for a long time and then here's another example of walking on water this is a this is a lizard from a lizard from the its temporal America and because it walks on water it's called the Jesus Christ lizard and at first you'll say well I know the answer to this the surface tension is is high on water but the common idea of surface tension is that there's a single molecular layer of water at the top and this single molecular layer is sufficient to create enough tension to hold whatever you put there I think this is an example that doesn't fit that and here's another example two beakers of water you put two electrodes in and you put a high voltage between them and then what happens is a bridge forms and this bridge is made of water the bridge of water and this bridge can be sustained as you move one beaker away from the other beaker as much as four centimeters sustained essentially indefinitely how come we don't understand this so what I mean is that there are lots of things about water that we should understand but we don't understand and so we really don't know so okay so what do we know about water well you've learned that water the water molecule contains an oxygen and two hydrogen's so we know that and we also know there are many water molecules and these water molecules are actually moving around microscopically so we know that what don't we know about water well we don't know something anything about the social behavior of water what do I mean by social well you know sitting at the bar and chatting with your neighbor we don't know how water molecules actually share information or interact and also we don't know about the the actual movements of water molecules how water molecules interact with one another and also how water molecules interact with other molecules like that purple one sitting there unknown also the phases of water now we've all learned we've all learned that there's a solid phase liquid phase in the vapor phase however a hundred years ago there was some idea that there might be a fourth face and we're in between a solid and a liquid a Sir William Hardy a famous physical chemist hundred years ago exactly professed that there was actually a fourth phase of water and this water was kind of more ordered than than other kinds of consistency so the question arose to us you know all of this was forgotten because because people who began as methods improved to to begin to study molecules instead of ensembles of molecules and people forgot about the collectivity of water molecules and began looking the same as in Balaji began looking at individual molecules in lost side of the collection so we thought we're going to look at this because we had some idea that it's possible that this missing link this fourth phase might actually be the missing leaf so that we can understand the phenomena regarding water that we don't understand so we started by looking somewhere between a solid and liquid and the first experiments that we did and get us going we took a gel that's the solid and we put it next to water and we added some particles to the water because we had the sense that something that particles would show us something and sure enough you can see that what happened is that the particles began moving away from the interface between the gel and the water and they just kept moving and moving and moving and they wound up stopping at a distance that's roughly the size of one of your hairs now that may seem small but by molecular dimensions that's practically infinite it's a huge dimension so we began studying the properties of this zone and we called it for obvious reasons the exclusion zone because practically everything you'd put there will get excluded would get expelled from the zone as it built up or instead of exclusion zone easy for short and so found that the matteri the kinds of materials that would create or nucleate this kind of zone not just jails but we found that practically every water-loving or so-called hydrophilic surface could do exactly that creating the easy water and as the easy water builds it would expel all the solutes or particles whatever in into the bulk water and we began learning about the properties and we've spent now quite a few years looking at the properties and so it looks something like – water and these sheets and they build and build and just keep building up one by one and so if you look at the structure of each one of these planes you can see that it's a honeycomb exact little kind of structure bit like ice but but not ice if you look at it carefully you can see the the molecular structures and of course it consists of hydrogen and oxygen but actually they're not water molecules if you start counting the number of hydrogen's and the number of oxygens it turns out that it's not h2o it's actually h3o – so it's possible that there's water that's not h2o some phase of water so we began looking of course more into these extremely interesting properties and what we found is we stuck in that curds into the easy water because we thought there might be some electrical potential it turned out that there's lots of negative charge in that zone and we use some dyes to seek positive charge and we found that in the bulk order zone there was an equal amount of positivity so what's going on it looked like is that next to these interfaces the water molecule was somehow splitting up into a negative part in the positive part and the negative parts sat right next to the water loving material and the positive charges went out beyond that and we found actually it's the same you didn't need a straight in face you could also have a sphere so you put a sphere in the water and any sphere that suspended water develops one of these exclusion zones or Easy's around that with the negative charge and beyond that is all the positive charge charge separation it didn't have to be only a material sphere and in fact you could put a droplet or in fact even a bubble you get the same result surrounding each one of these entities is a negative charge and the separated positive charge so here's a question for you if you take two of these negatively charged entities and you drop them in a beaker of water near each other what happens to the distance between them now I bet that 95% of you would say well that's easy I learned in physics negative and negative repel each other so therefore they're going to go apart from one another right is that what you you'd guess well the actual result if you think about it is that it's not only the positive charge negative charge but you also have positive charge and the positive charge is especially concentrated in between those two spheres because they come from contributions from both of those pairs so there's a lot of them there when you're positive in between two negatives what happens is that you get an attractive force and so you expect these two spheres to actually come together despite the fact that they have the same charge and that's exactly what happens it's been known for for many years they come together and if you have many of them instead of just two of them you'll get something that looks like this they they'll come together and this is called a colloid crystal it's a stable structure in fact the ogor that you might have had this morning probably consists of what you see right here so they come together because of the opposite charge the same thing is true if you have droplets they come together because of the opposing charges so when you think of droplets and aerosol droplets in the air and think about the cloud it's actually the reason that these aerosol droplets come together is because of this opposite charge so the droplets from the air similarly charged come together coalesce giving you that cloud in the sky so the fourth phase are easy phase actually explains quite a lot it explains for example the cloud and the cloud it's the positive charge that draws these negatively charged ez shells together to give you a condensed cloud that you see up in the sky in terms of the water droplets the reason that these are sustained on the surface were actually sometimes as long as tens of seconds and you can see it if you if you're in a boat and it's raining you can sometimes see this on the surface of the lake these droplets are sustained for some time the reason they're sustained is that each droplet contains this shell this easyshare and the shell has to be breached in order for the water to coalesce with the water beneath now in terms of the Jesus Christ lizard the reason the lizard could walk is not because of one single what I could elaire but there are many easy layers lining the surface and these are a gel like there's stiffer than ordinary surfaces so therefore you can float a coin on the surface of the water you can float a paperclip although if you put it beneath the surface it sinks right down to the bottom it's because of that and in terms of the water bridge if you think of it as plain old liquid bulk water hard to understand but if you think of it as easy water and the gel like character then you can understand how it could be sustained with its a very stiff structure okay so all all well and good but why is this useful for us what would can we do with it well we can get energy from water in fact the energy that we can get from water is free energy it's literally pretty we can take it from environment let me explain so you have a situation in the diagram with negative charge and positive charge and when you have two opposing charges next to each other it's like a battery so really we have essentially a battery made of water battering made of water and of course you can extract charge from it so that that is is the no batteries run down like your cell phone doesn't need to be plugged in every a day or two and so the question is well what charges this water battery it took us a while to figure that out what recharges the battery and one day we're doing an experiment and a student in the lab walks by and he has this lamp and he takes the lamp and he shines it on the specimen and where the light was shining we found that the exclusion zone grew it grew by leaps and bounds so we thought AHA it looks like light and you've many experiments to show that the energy for building this comes from light it comes not only from the direct light but also indirect light what do I mean by indirect light well what I mean is that the indirect light is for example infrared light that exists all over this this auditorium if we were to turn out all the lights including the floodlights and I pulled out my infrared camera and looked at the audience you'd see a very clear bright image I looked at the walls you'd see a very clear image and the reason for that is that everything is is is giving off infrared energy you're giving off energy that's the energy that's most effective in building this charge separation in this fourth phase so so in other words you have the material you have the easy water and you collect energy from outside and as you collect the energy from outside of the exclusion zone builds and if you take away that extra energy it'll go back to its normal size so this battery is basically charged by light by the Sun it's a gift from the Sun if you think about it what's going on if you think about the plant that you have sitting in your kitchen they're getting lines you know where the energy comes from the energy comes from the light it's the photons that hit the plant that supply all the energy right and the plant converts it to chemical energy the light energy to chemical energy and the chemical energy is then used to do growth and metabolism and what-have-you we all know it's very common when I'm suggesting to you from our results is that the same thing happens in water no surprise because because the plant is mostly water so suggesting to you that energy is coming in from outside light energy infrared energy radiant energy basically and the water is absorbing the energy and converting that energy into some sort of useful useful work and so the equation e equals H 2o a bit different than the equation that you're familiar with but I think it really is true that you can't separate energy from water water is a repository of energy coming free from the environment now can we harvest some of this energy or is it just totally useless well we can do that because you have a negative zone and a positive zone and if you put two of that codes in you can get energy right just like a battery and we've done that and we were able to for example a very simple optical display can be run from the energy that you get from here and obviously we need to build it up into something bigger and more major in order to get the energy this is free energy and it comes from water another opportunity that we've been developing is getting drinking clear free drinking water so if you have material and you put contaminated water and that's do it with junk that you want to get rid of so what happens as I've shown you is that this not gets excluded from beyond to beyond the exclusion zone and the remaining easy doesn't have any contaminant so you can put bacteria there and the bacteria would would go out and because the big it's easy to extract the water and harvest and we thought that and we're working to make it practical well one of the things we noticed is that it looks as though salt is also excluded so we're now thinking about extending this they're putting in ocean water and you put the ocean water in and if the salt is excluded then you simply take the easy water which should be free of salt and you can get drinking water and out of this also getting biological energy so the sounds are full of macromolecules proteins nucleic acids and each one of these is a nucleating start to build easy water so around each one of these is easy water now the easy water is negatively charged and the region beyond is positively charged so you have charge separation and these separated charges are free available to drive reactions inside your cells so what it means really is it's a kind of photosynthesis that your cells are doing the light is being absorbed converted into charge separation just the same photosynthesis and these charges are used by you one example of this obtaining energy on a larger scale I mean the energy is coming in all the time from from all over and it's absorbed by you actually quite deeply if you take the flashlight and you shine the flashlight through the palm you can actually see it through here so it penetrates quite deeply and you have many blood vessels all around you especially capillaries near the periphery and it's possible that some of this energy that's coming in is used to help drive let me explain that in a moment so so what you see here is the micro circulations a piece of muscle and you can see a few capillaries winding their way through and then these capillaries are the red blood cells that you can see now typical red blood cell looks like the upper right that's big but when they actually flow they Bend the reason they Bend is that the vessel is too small so the vessel is sometimes even half the size of the red blood they're gonna squinch and go through now it requires quite a bit of energy to do that and the question is does your heart really supply all the energy that's necessary for driving this event and what we found is a surprise we found that if we take a hollow tube made of hydrophilic material just like a straw and we put the straw in the water we found constant unending flow that goes through so here's the experiment here's the tube and you can see that the tube is put in the water we feel that the inside just to make sure it's completely filled inside and put it into the water and the water contains some spheres some particles so we can detect any movements that occur and you look in the microscope and what you find is looks like this unending flow through the tube it can go on for a full day as long as we've looked at it so it's free light is driving this flow in a tube no extra source of energy other than light so if you think about the human and think about the energy that's being desorbed in your water and in your cells it's possible that we may use some of this energy to drive biological processes in a way that you had not envisioned before so what I presented to you has many applications for science and technology that we've just begun thinking about and the most important is that that the radiant energy is absorbed by the water and giving energy to the water in terms of chemical potential and this may be used in biological context for example as in flow but many other blood flow in many other contexts as well and when you think of chemical reactions that involve water you just think of a molecule sitting in the water but what I've shown you is not just that you have the molecule the particle easy positive charge the effective life all of those need to be taken into account so it may be necessary to reconsider many of the kinds of reactions or an understanding these reactions that we've learned about no chemistry class whether so I've shown you about the critical factor is charge if you take a course in in weather and such you hear that the most critical factors are temperature and pressure charge is almost not mentioned despite the fact that you can see lightning and thunder all the time but charges may be much more important than pressure and temperature and giving us the kind of weather that we that we see health when you're sick the doctor says drink water there may be more to that then meets meets the eye and in food food is mostly water we don't think of food as being being water but it's mostly water if we want to understand how to freeze it how to preserve it how to avoid dehydration we must know something about the nature of water and we're beginning to understand about that in terms of practical uses there's desalination a possibility and by the way the desalination where you need it most is where the Sun shines the most in dry areas so the energy for doing all this is available freely available to do it and for standard filtration as well a very simple way of removing bacteria and such from drinking water it could be actually quite cheap for third world countries and finally getting electricity so I try to explain to you how waters fourth phase really understanding that water has not three phases but four phases and understanding the fourth phase I think is the key to unlock the door to understanding of many many phenomena and mostly what we like most is is actually is understanding the gentle beauty of nature thank you very much [Applause]

The Riddle of AntiMatter



Views:1502929|Rating:4.81|View Time:24:3Minutes|Likes:9141|Dislikes:360
Explore one of the deepest mysteries about the origin of our universe. According to standard theory, the early moments of the universe were marked by the explosive contact between subatomic particles of opposite charge. Featuring short interviews with Masaki Hori, Tokyo University and Jeffrey Hangst, Aarhus University.

Scientists are now focusing their most powerful technologies on an effort to figure out exactly what happened. Our understanding of cosmic history hangs on the question: how did matter as we know it survive? And what happened to its birth twin, its opposite, a mysterious substance known as antimatter?

A crew of astronauts is making its way to a launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Little noticed in the publicity surrounding the close of this storied program is the cargo bolted into Endeavor’s hold. It’s a science instrument that some hope will become one of the most important scientific contributions of human space flight.

It’s a kind of telescope, though it will not return dazzling images of cosmic realms long hidden from view, the distant corners of the universe, or the hidden structure of black holes and exploding stars.

Unlike the great observatories that were launched aboard the shuttle, it was not named for a famous astronomer, like Hubble, or the Chandra X-ray observatory.

The instrument, called the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, or AMS. The promise surrounding this device is that it will enable scientists to look at the universe in a completely new way.

Most telescopes are designed to capture photons, so-called neutral particles reflected or emitted by objects such as stars or galaxies. AMS will capture something different: exotic particles and atoms that are endowed with an electrical charge. The instrument is tuned to capture “cosmic rays” at high energy hurled out by supernova explosions or the turbulent regions surrounding black holes. And there are high hopes that it will capture particles of antimatter from a very early time that remains shrouded in mystery.

The chain of events that gave rise to the universe is described by what’s known as the Standard model. It’s a theory in the scientific sense, in that it combines a body of observations, experimental evidence, and mathematical models into a consistent overall picture. But this picture is not necessarily complete.

The universe began hot. After about a billionth of a second, it had cooled down enough for fundamental particles to emerge in pairs of opposite charge, known as quarks and antiquarks. After that came leptons and antileptons, such as electrons and positrons. These pairs began annihilating each other.

Most quark pairs were gone by the time the universe was a second old, with most leptons gone a few seconds later. When the dust settled, so to speak, a tiny amount of matter, about one particle in a billion, managed to survive the mass annihilation.

That tiny amount went on to form the universe we can know – all the light emitting gas, dust, stars, galaxies, and planets. To be sure, antimatter does exist in our universe today. The Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope spotted a giant plume of antimatter extending out from the center of our galaxy, most likely created by the acceleration of particles around a supermassive black hole.

The same telescope picked up signs of antimatter created by lightning strikes in giant thunderstorms in Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists have long known how to create antimatter artificially in physics labs – in the superhot environments created by crashing atoms together at nearly the speed of light.

Here is one of the biggest and most enduring mysteries in science: why do we live in a matter-dominated universe? What process caused matter to survive and antimatter to all but disappear? One possibility: that large amounts of antimatter have survived down the eons alongside matter.

In 1928, a young physicist, Paul Dirac, wrote equations that predicted the existence of antimatter. Dirac showed that every type of particle has a twin, exactly identical but of opposite charge. As Dirac saw it, the electron and the positron are mirror images of each other. With all the same properties, they would behave in exactly the same way whether in realms of matter or antimatter. It became clear, though, that ours is a matter universe. The Apollo astronauts went to the moon and back, never once getting annihilated. Solar cosmic rays proved to be matter, not antimatter.

It stands to reason that when the universe was more tightly packed, that it would have experienced an “annihilation catastrophe” that cleared the universe of large chunks of the stuff. Unless antimatter somehow became separated from its twin at birth and exists beyond our field of view, scientists are left to wonder: why do we live in a matter-dominated universe?

an international race is picking up speed to see our universe for what it really is and how it came to be according to the standard theory that describes the origins of the universe it's early moments were marked by the explosive contact between subatomic particles of opposite charge scientists are now focusing their most powerful technologies on an effort to figure out exactly what happened our understanding of cosmic history hangs on the question how did matter as we know it survived and what happened to its birth to him it's opposite a mysterious substance known as antimatter a crew of astronauts is making its way to a launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida they'll enter the space shuttle Endeavour for the 134th and second to the last flight of the space shuttle little noticed in the publicity surrounding the close of this storage program is the cargo bolted into endeavours hole it's a science instrument that some hope will become one of the most important scientific contributions of human spaceflight it's a kind of telescope though it will not return dazzling images of cosmic realms long hidden from view the distant corners of the universe or the hidden structure of black holes and exploding stars unlike the Great observatories that were launched aboard the shuttle it was not named for a famous astronomer like Hubble or the Chandra x-ray Observatory the instrument called the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer or AMS is the brainchild of this man Samuel ting from Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the heart of the AMS is a large superconducting magnet and designed to operate in the pristine environment of space of which is the with its intensive power requirements the final version was attached to the International Space Station ation inside the cupola on the International Space Station being maneuvered into the promised surrounding this device II is that it will enable scientists to look at the universe in a completely new way you guys go as far as release never most telescopes are designed to capture photons so-called neutral particles reflected or emitted by objects such as stars or galaxies AMS will capture something different exotic particles and atoms that are endowed with an electrical charge among these are a theoretical Dark Matter particle called a neutrally no then there are the strangelets a type of quark that could amount to a whole new form of matter the instrument is tuned to capture cosmic rays at high energy hurled out by supernova explosions for the turbulent regions surrounding black holes and there are high hopes that it will capture particles of antimatter from a very early time that remains shrouded in mystery the chain of events that gave rise to the universe is described by what's known as the standard model it's a theory in the scientific sense in that it combines a body of observations experimental evidence and physical laws into a consistent overall picture but this picture is not necessarily complete the universe began hot after about a billionth of a second it had cooled down enough for fundamental particles to emerge in pairs of opposite charge known as quarks and antiquarks after that came leptons and anti leptons such as electrons and positrons these pairs began annihilating each other most pork pairs had annihilated by the time the universe was a second old with most leptons gone a few seconds later when the dust settled so to speak a tiny amount of matter about one particle in a billion managed to survive the mass annihilation that tiny amount went on to form the universe we know all the light emitting gas dust stars galaxies and planets to be sure antimatter does exist in our universe today the Fermi gamma-ray Space Telescope spotted a giant plume of antimatter extending out from the center of our galaxy most likely created by the acceleration of particles around a supermassive black hole the same telescope picked up signs of antimatter created by lightning strikes in giant thunderstorms in Earth's atmosphere a European cosmic ray satellite called pamela detected a huge store of anti protons in orbit around the earth created by high-energy particles striking the upper atmosphere then held there by magnetic fields that ringed the planet scientists have long known how to create antimatter artificially in physics labs in the superhot environments created by crashing atoms together at nearly the speed of light here is one of the biggest and most enduring mysteries in science why do we live in a matter-dominated universe what process caused matter to survive and antimatter to all but disappear one possibility that large amounts of antimatter have survived down the eons alongside matter that was the view of the german-born physicist Arthur Schuster who appears to have coined the term antimatter in 1898 he imagined that its opposite charge would allow it to act as a counter to gravity large tracts of space he wrote might thus be filled unknown to us with a substance in which gravity is practically non-existent until by some accidental cause such as a meteorite flying through it unstable equilibrium is established the matter collecting on one side the antimatter on the other until two worlds are formed separating from each other never to unite again the issue gathered dust until 1928 when a young physicist Paul Dirac wrote equations that predicted the existence of antimatter Dirac showed that every type of particle has a twin exactly identical but of opposite charge so for every proton there's an antiproton for every electron there's a positron for every neutron and antineutron within them are quarks and they're twins the anti quarks as Dirac saw it the electron and the positron are mirror images of each other with all the same properties they would behave in exactly the same way whether in realms of matter or antimatter in his Nobel Prize lecture in 1933 Dirac pondered a larger reality for antimatter if we accept he said the view of complete symmetry between positive and negative electric charge so far as concerns the fundamental laws of nature we must regard it rather as an accident that the earth and presumably the whole solar system contains a preponderance of negative electrons and positive protons it is quite possible that for some of the stars it is the other way about these stars being built up mainly of positrons and negative protons just the year before the physicist Karl Anderson had confirmed the existence of antimatter by shooting gamma rays at atoms creating electron positron pairs it became clear though that ours is a matter universe the Apollo astronauts went to the moon and back never once getting annihilated solar cosmic rays proved to be matter not antimatter traveling to every corner of the solar system our probes have not encountered any objects made of antimatter cosmic rays from the Milky Way are overwhelmingly matter if there are any large concentrations in nearby galaxies or galaxy clusters we should see gamma rays produced when particles and antiparticles find each other it stands to reason too that when the universe was more tightly packed that it would have experienced an annihilation catastrophe that cleared the universe of large chunks understand unless antimatter somehow became separated from its twin at birth and exists beyond our field of view scientists are left to wonder why do we live in a matter-dominated universe Dirac's symmetrical view of matter and antimatter which saw them as equivalent collapsed three decades later in 1964 the American physicists James Cronin and Val Fitch examined the decay of a particle called a k on to its antiparticle twin they found that the trance nation back to normal matter did not occur with the same probability that would suggest there must be small differences in the physical laws that govern matter and anti-matter to find out exactly what makes them different or asymmetrical would be a big step toward understanding how our universe took the shape that it did that's why physicists are hot on the trail of antimatter with new technologies designed to give them a closer look at this strange substance in nature and in the lab but if there is some antimatter out there escapees from the mass annihilation of the Big Bang still fleeing through the emptiness of space the crew of endeavor placed the AMS instrument on the International Space Station in May 2011 since then scientists have been combing the data for the signatures of antimatter particles striking its detector if they managed to detect heavier elements such as anti helium or anti carbon that would point to concentrations of antimatter in space large enough to a form stars where those elements are created and suggest that symmetry may not have been broken after all such heavier anti-atoms can exist at Brookhaven National Lab in New York scientists recently smashed gold atoms together at nearly the speed of light from about a billion individual collisions its detectors recorded the presence of 18 anti helium atoms atoms with two anti protons and two Aten neutrons the explosive potential of antimatter in this universe has long animated the voyages of science fiction it's the fuel of choice for getting beyond our solar system and out to the stars just to get into orbit the Space Shuttle had to be loaded up with some 15 times its weight in conventional rocket fuel the energy contained in antimatter is orders of magnitude greater in fact it would take just a coin sized portion to propel the shuttle into orbit because antimatter is so volatile with our matter filled universe the challenge for scientists is first to create it then to hold it for enough time to study it before it simply vanishes even as the shuttle Endeavour glided on to land for the last time AMS scientists were beginning to filter through the rush of charged particles in space meanwhile scientists on the ground were beginning their own intensive efforts to corral antimatter in their labs they are trying to do this at the giant European physics lab CERN in a little-known corner the antiproton deceleration lab a group of scientists is showing that you can actually trap and hold antimatter long enough to study the anti protons from the antiproton decelerator that's the machine that we need here at CERN come down this pipe right here and they come into our apparatus which is inside this large magnets this is a very strong magnetic field to help to confine the charged particles that make anti hydrogen we mix the anti protons with positrons inside this magnet trap and that's where we capture them inside the Alpha chamber the magnetic field holds the particles in place and isolates them from one another an electric field separates the electrons and positrons they are then carefully brought into contact when two positrons collide one falls into orbit around an antiproton forming anti hydrogen then the molecule is trapped by magnetic fields like a marble rolling around in a bathtub now remove the bathtub the magnetic fields the anti molecule smacks up against the wall of the detector and annihilates emitting a shower of particles so what we do is hold on to them for a thousand seconds and then release them to make sure they were there that's how you do this measurement that 1,000 seconds almost 17 minutes is a major accomplishment on the atomic life scale a thousand seconds is forever things on the atomic life scale are measured in nanoseconds or smaller perhaps so this is forever for an atom to be trapped the next step and that's what we're reporting now is to hold on to it see how long can we keep it around so that we can study it after all that's what we want to do we want to study the antimatter compare it to matter and see if they're the same and by study we mean interact with lasers or with microwave radiation to see what their structure is inside how do they behave do they behave exactly like hydrogen within the same lab the effort to pinpoint differences is already underway scientists working with the Asakusa detector are trying to measure the precise weight of an antiproton these oddball molecules contain one antiproton which would normally inhabit the atomic nucleus instead it orbits the nucleus in place of an electron it survives microseconds in the detector but that's enough for the scientists to hit it with a pair of lasers the molecule blows apart on impact and that enables them to calculate the weight of its components we've measured through a precision of nine digits and we found that the antimatter the antiproton mass is exactly the same as a proton mass 2 therefore our nine digits of precision if they find there is a difference it's bound to be subtle will it be enough to shed light on why matter survived and antimatter did not the differences may lie much deeper in the structure of matter that we've so far been able to go scientists are now preparing to throw a new generation of powerful technologies at the problem at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN they can send atoms whipping around a 27 kilometer tunnel and into ultra high-energy collisions looking at the zoo of particles that splatter onto the walls of the detectors they are hoping to find differences between quarks and their anti quark counterparts one recent computer calculation performed at Columbia University unveiled differences between quarks and antiquarks when it was assumed that these particles interact with dimensions beyond the four that define the universe we experience still its authors wondered whether the differences are enough to account for our matter filled universe understanding the asymmetry between matter and antimatter is one of the most important quests in modern cosmology because it would help expand or perhaps even challenge aspects of the standard model the clash of these opposite forms in the early universe parks back to William Blake's poem what's immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry we now ask what in the chaotic birth of time and space could break nature's symmetry and set our universe in motion

President Trump talks US economy, energy infrastructure



Views:5249|Rating:4.52|View Time:49:45Minutes|Likes:256|Dislikes:27
President Trump delivers remarks on promoting energy infrastructure and economic growth.

FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capital of the world — FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year. T
he network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States. Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London.

Subscribe to Fox Business!
Watch more Fox Business Video:
Watch Fox Business Network Live:

Watch full episodes of FBN Primetime shows
Lou Dobbs Tonight:
Trish Regan Primetime:
Kennedy:

Follow Fox Business on Facebook:
Follow Fox Business on Twitter:
Follow Fox Business on Instagram:

Lex Megatrends: the business of climate change



Views:3915|Rating:4.27|View Time:4:31Minutes|Likes:76|Dislikes:13
► Try the Financial Times for 4 weeks for just £1. Start your trial now –

The FT’s Jonathan Guthrie explains the knock-on effects of global warming for politicians, businesses and investors, from farming to tourism, insurance to the car and energy industries

► Subscribe to FT.com here:

► Subscribe to the Financial Times on YouTube:

For more video content from the Financial Times, visit

Twitter
Facebook

Life on earth depends
on a Goldilocks climate – not too hot and not too cold. Humankind is changing that. Industrialisation has raised
temperatures around 1 degree. Experts think a further
rise of another degree is possible by 2052, even
after big emissions cuts. Crops will be more
likely to fail, displacing human populations. In Paris in 2015,
industrialised nations agreed they would limit global
warming to less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels,
but there has been more hot air than action. Nations cannot agree how much
each should cut emissions. Rising populism has
fostered scepticism about global warming. Under Donald Trump,
the US has threatened to withdraw from
the Paris accord. They have a collective
action problem. Everyone would benefit from
cutting emissions, eventually. No one wants to be
the prime mover. So there is no progress. The reason is that the
costs of global warming remain an externality
for most individuals. There is no immediate
benefit in reducing them. As a result, impacts
are an externality to most politicians,
too, except when protesters from
Extinction Rebellion disrupt the traffic, as
they did recently in London. They are preoccupied
with getting elected every few years. It is, as they sometimes
say in business, NMP, or next management's problem. By the same logic as
temperatures rise, people will start
bearing direct costs. For example, some populous
parts of the world will become too hot to
inhabit in the summer or to visit as tourists. The facts such as these will
create an electoral incentive to slash emissions. Then nations will
start taking action. Squabbling will continue. One flashpoint will be
output of polluting coal. This is expected to peak at well
over 8bn metric tonnes in 2030. Many in China and India see
western demands for production cuts as self-serving. Even within developed nations
there will be conflicts. US researchers have predicted
hefty economic damage to Texas and Florida
later this century, coupled with more modest
benefits for the states of Washington and Oregon. What will the consequences
be for investors? The value of big oil companies,
such as Royal Dutch Shell, would fall. If reserves cannot be
exploited fully they need to be discounted heavily. The value of renewables
groups, like Denmark's Orsted, would go up reflecting
a growing market. Their technologies would depend
less and less on subsidies to make profits. Nuclear generation
would make a resurgence as a supplier of
baseload electricity. That would bolster
the price of uranium, which has been depressed
since the Fukushima disaster. Extreme weather would
become more common. That would make farming
investment riskier, but agricultural commodities
trading more lucrative. Demand for catastrophe
insurance would continue to rise sharply,
bolstering Lloyd's of London and the market for
catastrophe bonds. Some competing companies
appear more committed to a low-carbon economy
than competing nations. JPMorgan estimates
three-fifths of car sales would be hybrids or
fully electric by 2030. That compares with
2 per cent in 2015. Lex believes big traditional
carmakers, such as VW and GM, will succeed in
switching wholesale into electric vehicle output. They understand mass
production, after all. That will leave Tesla where it
is now, as a niche business, if it is not bought out. Another interesting niche will
be hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Toyota has made a
side bet these will be needed for hauling heavy loads. The reason? Growth in the weight-to-power
ratio of batteries has been linear. Exponential growth
would be needed for battery-powered vehicles to
become universal, experts say. Businesses will need to make a
lot of other intelligent bets to build the low-carbon economy. Governments will belatedly
impose the incentives and penalties needed. The one certainty
of climate change is that business as usual
will not be an option.

Combustion & Flames: What is Combustion – Definition & Chemical Equation – 01 For Class 8th and NTSE



Views:57579|Rating:4.56|View Time:28:57Minutes|Likes:587|Dislikes:57
Get Full Course Delivered at your Home: Call-9826023696
Visit our Website:
Mail us at :[email protected]
For Online Course: Download our app from Google Play Store and App Store
Join Classroom Course at Indore.

COMBUSTION:

Combustion reactions are chemical reactions, in everyday life which is called as burning. When a candle is lit it is combustion. The process of burning of a substance is called as combustion. It is an exothermic process. A chemical reaction which gives out heat to the surroundings is called exothermic reactions.
It is a chemical reaction in which a substance reacts with the oxygen present in the air to give out heat.

Combustible Substances: The substances which burn and catch fire are called as combustible substances. For example: wood, paper, coke, coal, liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas, hydrogen, petrol, kerosene, diesel etc.

Non Combustible Substances: Substances that do not burn or catch fire are called as non combustible substances. eg: cement, stone, marbles, glass etc.

hello students today we are going to start with new listen combustion and flame okay so in this chapter basically we will read about the types of flames how the things born why things burn about the fire okay now when I say we will study about fire should we all are well aware about the fire in fact you know like it has got religious importance also in India you may remember like in olden days lots of avenues to be done even now also and offerings used to be given to the in the fire during the marriages also have an lick heaven is or the fire is a very important part in religion also like it has got religious importance also now if we talk about something related to this even it is considered as the basic element of life you know and if we talk something beyond religion then I should say or I can say that fire is something which is very important in our life just imagine if you don't if we cannot lit if we cannot burn anything if you cannot lit anything then how we are going to cook food so there will be no difference left in eating because if we cannot lit the fire we'll have to eat everything raw and then this was what the olden men or the the men a delegate of our ancestors they used to do it they used to eat raw food so this fire it makes a big difference you know it proves that how how man has developed from primitive stages from primitive from Stone Age how we have developed ourselves and how we have come to this new era ok so first of all to begin we'll start the chapter combustion and flames okay when a substance burns okay when a substance burns what does it emits it emits lot of heat and energy okay see we put many substances okay we have seen many substances burning like talk about paper talk about Patrol talk about diesel kerosene gas LPG CNG okay so we have seen many substances burning okay but what is common between burning of all these substances and what is common among the substances so the common thing is that the substance which burns okay they produce heat and light okay why not why I am looking towards backward again again because I want to tell you the meaning of T combustion now what is the meaning of combustion children combustion is to burn okay whenever a thing is burning katniss we can say that this substance is undergoing combustion okay whenever a substance burns that means it is undergoing combustion and whenever a substance burns it always produces heat and light okay so always remember the saying that fire is very important part of our life it has got religious importance plus it is the one which has helped us to develop in our sins which we are now okay so to begin with what is combustion so what is combustion anything when or where a substance born it produces light and heat and how the substance can burn like what happens why a substance burns so when a success is burning katniss what is happening children when a substance is burning that means it is combining with oxygen we all know we have read this in the third standard pose that for burning what is necessary oxygen is necessary okay so when I say that we are talking about combustion that means we are talking about the substance which undergoes what combustion that means a substance is burning due to burning heat and light is produced and when I say when a substance is going to enter the process of combustion that means it is combining with oxygen okay so let's have a look first of all how substance undergoes combustion what actually happens okay so let me take the example of magnesium okay magnesium will reacts with oxygen okay so what will happen children okay what is form here magnesium oxide is form okay so again what is from here oxide is form now in the same way if I talk about carbon when carbon burns so what happens carbon dioxide is form okay so I will write over here magnesium oxide okay magnesium oxide and carbon dioxide so how can we first of all will talk about combustion again how can we define conversion so what is combustion when a substance when of substance bonds in the air it is called as combustion okay but this is a half definition okay when a substance burns in the air it is called as combustion but to produce what it produces what how can we complete this definition this definition is incomplete till we write what is produced heat and light okay heat and light art produce okay heat and light are produced in this process ok let's try to understand what we are discussing now children I am talking about what is combustion what is combustion children whenever a substance burns so we can say that the substance is undergoing combustion now when I'm talking about the combustion whenever a substance burn it produces two things it produces heat and light okay it produces heat and light so if we talk about burning okay when a substance is burning means it is combining with four children it is combining with oxygen see in sevens and also we might have you might have done the experiment or you might have seen the magnesium ribbon burning okay actually different substances bones in that different way which we are going to discuss in the later part of the chapter for now children when I say that some substance is burning that means it has to combine with God it has to combine with oxygen so just have a look magnesium is burning magnesium ribbon is burning so what is the case magnesium is actually combining with oxygen to produce oxide okay to produce oxide why children saying oxide because if we talk about magnesium it is going to produce magnesium oxide if we talk about sulfur like sulfur is burning sulfur is combining with oxygen so obviously sulfur dioxide will form okay if Naren is burning so oxide of nitrogen will be formed now when I am saying carbon is burning okay how carbon is burning we all know that in wood carbon is present okay when we talk about coal the like most of the part of coal consists of out carbon so when I am saying that I am burning a coal or a we are talking about the burning of coal so cool if coal is burning again it has to combine with what that means it is combining with oxygen so again when a carbon is combining with oxygen oxide will be formed so I have written over here carbon dioxide so from this till now what is clear from this children again same thing I will say that whenever a substance burns to produce heat in light we say that it is combustion okay now combustion means what to react with oxygen to combine with oxygen so I have written over your two examples that if you talk about the burning of magnesium ribbon if you talk about the burning of carbon if you talk about burning of any substance okay if it is burning that means it is combining with oxygen and then oxides are formed okay now how can we write that how can we say how can we write that when a substance is burning it is combining with oxygen how can we say that so I will just talk about a little experiment which we all have done maybe and third of four standard a very basic kind of experiment so if a candle is taking children I'd rather go and do this side if a candle is taken and what it is gold okay now the candle is burning now when the candle is burning you all can see that light is produced okay you try to touch so what will happen you will feel the heat you will understand that it is very hot okay that means when something is burning heat and light is produced this thing is clear okay so heat and light is produced this one is clear now instead of picking candle if you take example of anything if you take the example of coal or anything you will find that heat and light is produced now the second thing which we want to prove is that for burning oxygen is required so children you will see that candle is burning okay now if you cover the candle with some glass jar in this way if you keep a glass jar inverted okay inverted on the burning candle why I am seeing about why I am saying about the class yard with because it will be visible from the glass okay it will be visible you can understand like what is happening inside if you again L repeat if you take a burning candle and you will see that heat and light is produced from this and now when you cover the candle with the inverted glass what will happen within few seconds you will see that this you know flame is flickering okay it's flickering mean spot it's not able to burn as nicely as it was burning previously when it was not covered by any kind of inverted jar okay but after you covered the flame after you covered the flame what had started the flame has started flickering okay that means now it's not burning in the same way with the same heat energy with the same glow as it was burning previously now just wait for few seconds or maybe minutes what will happen you will see that this field extinguishes you will see that now candle is not burning candle is extinguished what is the case why does this happens children because in the beginning oxygen was there okay in the beginning oxygen was there okay when it was burning co2 is being produced okay but co2 is produced but it was getting mixed up with the atmosphere and this flame was getting atmospheric oxygen okay continuously there was flow contact of the atmospheric oxygen so there was no problem in the burning of this candle flame but once when it was covered by the discharge inverted glass so what happened now oxygen is not that okay no oxygen cannot come inside and due to burning whatever oxygen is present inside with the help of that oxygen this candle will burn and after burning as I say oxide will be produced here also carbon dioxide is produced but now what is happening children that now the oxygen is not available oxygen is cut off that means co2 has replaced oxygen please try to understand this that means co2 has replaced oxygen and now this area is covered by carbon dioxide due to this due to what when the area is covered by carbon dioxide that means there is no oxygen that means there is nothing which can help in burning okay that is the reason this candle extinguishes this flame extinguishes and you will find that the candle doesn't burn anymore okay so this is a little experiment which shows that for burning here for burning what is required oxygen is required and second thing what does it proves that whenever a substance burns it produces heat and light okay so to repeat this thing to just have a quick revision of this when a substance burns in the air again it has to be written children burns in the air it is called as combustion heat and light are produced I have written produces produced in this process okay heat and light are produced in this process okay when we have to define it properly so how we will write us when a substance burns in air and heating light is produced or when a substance burns to produce heat and light the process is known as combustion okay now after combustion we will see quick you know you might have seen this experience this thing in your life that there are few things which burns easily okay like you take the example of the you know very common one paper you all have seen a burning paper okay cotton burns paper burns okay there are many things which burns okay but at the same time you might have also experienced there are few substances which do not burn okay which do not burns so how can we can we have any kind of division between these kind of substances student which kind of substances that means two categories of the substances why substance which burns okay one substance which burns and the another substance which do not burn so that division we are going to talk about now I will write combustible substances ok combustible substances now what is the meaning of combustible substances shouldn't combustible substances means those substances which undergoes combustion which burns which combines with oxygen are you getting me clear like how can we define combustible substances those substances which burns to produce heat and light or which the substances which what they react with oxygen and heat and light is produced ok so there can be one category of the substances which we can say that these substances are combustible substances okay which can be the substances which can which we can say that via this substances are combustible so like cotton cloth okay even I have to told this thing many at times Patrol ok diesel kerosene all LPG all these substances they burn okay all the substances they undergo the process of combustion so all the substances which undergoes the process of combustion are known as combustible substances but shouldn't there signal substances which do not burn ok have you ever tried to burn you know glass or plastic or you know even if you try to burn sand ok or something like that which you might have experienced there is no need for me to tell or to recall just think about your own experiences you will definitely find a substance unless of the substance you which you might have you know in your yah yah yah Hadees or you might have tried at least once to burn something which doesn't burn okay so although substance is which do not burn which do not undergo the process of combustion are known as non combustible substances okay so first of all we'll talk about I'll write the definition of combustible substances so how can we define combustible substances so those substances which undergoes which undergoes combustion very easily to produce to produce war children again what will be produce your heat and light heat and light please understand what I am writing those substances which undergoes combustion very easily okay to produce what to produce heat and light our callers are combustible substances combustible substances okay now just now we have discussed about examples of combustible substances so for example cotton paper okay patrol LPG CNG kerosene diesel okay all these are the example of combustible substances why because all these substances undergoes combustion very easily and whenever they undergo combustion they produce large amount of heat and light okay now we will talk about the next fun non combustible substances just opposite to this what we have written here those substances which undergoes combustion so those substances which do not undergo the process of combustion okay are called is non combustible substances for example send glass okay all the substances undergoes combustion no these substances do not burn and so we cannot put all these into the same category okay now this one was I can write over here number one now we will discuss about a number two a rather definition of number two that is non combustible substances okay now this one is non combustible substances how can we do this so how can we write over here those substances which do not undergo the process off commotion ah got an ass non combustible substances okay now again here also we need to write some examples so for example just try to recollect the substances which you try to burn and it doesn't burns okay can you burn water okay so even water okay glass sand so all these are substances which do not burn etc okay so all these substances these substances do not burn they do not undergo the process of combustion and so these are known as non combustible substances okay so now first of all we have studied about what is combustion children whenever a substance bones whenever substance undergoes the process of combustion heat and light is produced okay what is combustion burning of a substance okay and producing on production of heat and light is what is what combustion now when I am saying combustion a substance is undergoing the process of combustion that means it has to react with what it has to react with the process of like it has to react with the oxygen and when it reacts with oxygen then we can say that this substance and regos the process of combustion after like what happens in combustion what is form oxides form okay an eeveelution of heat and light it is not the case that only heat and light is produced sometime even sound also produces is phallic sound can also be produced which will be seeing in the little part of the chapter after this we divided the substances the substance which can burn and the substance which cannot burn so combustible substances and non combustible substances now we will talk about something like what is required okay when I'm saying that this substance okay when I am saying that there are few substances which are burning okay there are few substances which are burning where i have written over written over here there are certain substances which are burning and there certain substances which are not burning so what is the case why does it happen there are few substance which burns and the few dozen burns okay so before that now we will talk about like when these substances are burning so what are the things which are important for burning for the process of combustion what are the things what are the conditions rather I should say what are the conditions which is essential for the process of combustion so let's let's have a look upon the conditions which are necessary for the process of the combustion

The Electromagnetic Spectrum



Views:1293997|Rating:4.77|View Time:5:20Minutes|Likes:7626|Dislikes:360
[email protected]: EMS (Episode 1) – An Introduction To The Electromagnetic Spectrum


Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:



Measuring the electromagnetic spectrum

You actually know more about it than you may think! The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is just a name that scientists give a bunch of types of radiation when they want to talk about them as a group. Radiation is energy that travels and spreads out as it goes– visible light that comes from a lamp in your house and radio waves that come from a radio station are two types of electromagnetic radiation.

Other examples of EM radiation are microwaves, infrared and ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma-rays. Hotter, more energetic objects and events create higher energy radiation than cool objects. Only extremely hot objects or particles moving at very high velocities can create high-energy radiation like X-rays and gamma-rays.

The different types of radiation in the EM spectrum, in order from lowest energy to highest:

Radio: Yes, this is the same kind of energy that radio stations emit into the air for your boom box to capture and turn into your favorite Mozart, Madonna, or Justin Timberlake tunes. But radio waves are also emitted by other things … such as stars and gases in space. You may not be able to dance to what these objects emit, but you can use it to learn what they are made of.

Microwaves: They will cook your popcorn in just a few minutes! Microwaves in space are used by astronomers to learn about the structure of nearby galaxies, and our own Milky Way!

Infrared: Our skin emits infrared light, which is why we can be seen in the dark by someone using night vision goggles. In space, IR light maps the dust between stars.

Visible: Yes, this is the part that our eyes see. Visible radiation is emitted by everything from fireflies to light bulbs to stars … also by fast-moving particles hitting other particles.

Ultraviolet: We know that the Sun is a source of ultraviolet (or UV) radiation, because it is the UV rays that cause our skin to burn! Stars and other “hot” objects in space emit UV radiation.

X-rays: Your doctor uses them to look at your bones and your dentist to look at your teeth. Hot gases in the Universe also emit X-rays .

Gamma-rays: Radioactive materials (some natural and others made by man in things like nuclear power plants) can emit gamma-rays. Big particle accelerators that scientists use to help them understand what matter is made of can sometimes generate gamma-rays. But the biggest gamma-ray generator of all is the Universe! It makes gamma radiation in all kinds of ways.


.

something surrounds you unbarred you some of which you can't see touch or even feel everyday everywhere you go it is odorless and tasteless yet you use it and depend on it every hour of every day without it the world you know could not exist what is it electromagnetic radiation these waves spread across a spectrum from very short gamma rays to x-rays ultraviolet rays visible light waves even longer infrared waves microwaves to radio waves which can measure longer than a mountain range this spectrum is the foundation of the information age end of our modern world your radio remote control text message television microwave oven even a doctor's x-ray all depend on waves within the electromagnetic spectrum electromagnetic waves or e/m waves are similar to ocean waves in that both are energy waves they transmit energy e/m waves are produced by the vibration of charged particles and have electrical and magnetic properties but unlike ocean waves that require water eeehm waves travel through the vacuum of space at the constant speed of light eeehm waves have crests and troughs like ocean waves the distance between crests is the wavelength while some a.m. wavelengths are very long and are measured in meters many are tiny and are measured in billionths of a meter nanometers the number of these crests that pass a given point within one second is described as the frequency of the wave 1 wave or cycle per second is called a Hertz long a.m. waves such as radio waves have the lowest frequency and carry less energy adding energy increases the frequency of the wave and makes the wavelength shorter gamma rays are the shortest highest energy waves in the spectrum so as you sit watching TV not only are there visible light waves from the TV striking your eyes but also radio waves transmitting from a nearby station and microwaves carrying cell phone calls and text messages and waves from your neighbor's Wi-Fi and GPS units in the cars driving by there is a chaos of waves from all across the spectrum passing through your room right now with all these waves around you how can you possibly watch your TV show similar to tuning a radio to a specific radio station our eyes are tuned to a specific region of the e/m spectrum and can detect energy with wavelengths from 400 to 700 nanometers the visible light region of the spectrum objects appear to have color because e/m waves interact with their molecules some wavelengths in the visible spectrum are reflected and other wavelengths are absorbed this leaf looks green because e/m waves interact with the chlorophyll molecules waves between 492 & 577 nanometers in length are reflected and our eye interprets this as the leaf being green our eyes see the leaf as green but cannot tell us anything about how the leaf reflects ultraviolet microwave or infrared waves to learn more about the world around us scientists and engineers have devised ways to enable us to see beyond that sliver of the e/m spectrum called visible light data from multiple wavelengths help scientists study all kinds of amazing phenomena on earth from seasonal change to specific habitats everything around us emits reflects and absorbs e em radiation differently based on its composition a graph showing these interactions across a region of the e/m spectrum is called a spectral signature characteristic patterns like fingerprints within the spectra allow astronomers to identify an object's chemical composition and to determine such physical properties as temperature and density NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope observed the presence of water and organic molecules in a galaxy 3.2 billion light-years away viewing our Sun in multiple wavelengths with the Soho satellite allows scientists to study and understand sunspots that are associated with solar flares and eruptions harmful to satellites astronauts and communications here on earth we are constantly learning more about our world and universe by taking advantage of the unique information contained in the different waves across the e/m spectrum

How to See an Aura: Learn to See the Human Aura in 5 Minutes



Views:4864584|Rating:4.77|View Time:5:3Minutes|Likes:46090|Dislikes:2239
Did you know that everything has an aura? In this video, you’ll learn to see the human aura for yourself. With practice and consistency, you’ll be able to see the aura for object too!

Can you see the aura? Are you seeing colored auras? Can’t see the aura and need a little help? Let us know in the comments below!

Higher Balance specializes in trainings to help you discover and refine your spiritual abilities. Choose from courses in a wide array of topics including energy manipulation, sixth sense development, E.S.P., telepathy, astral projection, manifestation, and paranormal encounters.

Subscribe to our channel:

Connect with us on social media:
Instagram –
Facebook –
Twitter –

Check out our podcast, Rebel Guru® Radio:

why should you learn to see the aura well other than it's a pretty cool experience to be able to see something that most people think doesn't even exist or is invisible science has proven that subtle energies affect us whether we want to believe in it or not energy is everywhere good energy bad energy and if you can tune in to energy and see it like the aura then you can affect how this energy impacts you in your life so here we go here's how to see the aura and here's how to see it on someone else what you want to do is ask them to stand about ten feet away and they should stand on something like what I have which is a plain white or a plain black background basically what you want is you just want something without any patterns because that's gonna make it harder to see the actual aura next look at the person's nose right about here and you want to look with a relaxed gaze that means you don't want to stare don't look at the nose because the nose isn't the aura what you want to do is you want to stare at the nose and then with the relaxed gaze use your peripheral vision the peripheral vision basically means looking out of the corner of your eyes here's the cool thing your eyes are curved which means that they can see a different spectrum of light on the side on the corner of your eyes then you can head on so what you'll first see around their head and shoulders is basically a transparent fog here's the thing the aura when you first see it appears very transparent have you ever gone out on a hot day and you're looking at a car or a sidewalk and you'll see those heat waves kind of like shimmering that's what it'll look like but it's just gonna be barely just an inch to maybe half an inch just off the shoulders and around their head once you catch it you just want to keep your gaze relaxed don't get excited and stare right at it because then it's probably gonna disappear okay so once you catch it just quietly observe it just watch it and just notice it it's like you're just studying it and as you begin to study it that's when the auras going to start to grow brighter and to come more into focus now if you're looking at their nose and you're trying to use your peripheral vision and you can't quite catch it move your vision from right at their nose to the center of their forehead just a slight movement up sometimes just that slight movement is all it takes to just catch it just for the first time because what you're trying to do is just notice it and once you notice it just to stay on it until you can see that it changes just a little bit some people can see the you are right away others take a few minutes don't be discouraged anybody can see it now this is probably something that for sure is gonna happen at some point you're gonna be seeing the oil you're gonna be practicing with it and you're gonna blink and when you blink it's gonna completely disappear don't panic this happens to everybody here's the funny thing is that your mind your consciousness is plugged into your brain and your body right whenever you blink like that it tells your consciousness to reset so remember because you're watching the aura you're tuning into that frequency of energy as soon as you blink it drops you back down to where you were before the more you practice the less this is gonna happen but in the beginning is gonna happen it happens to everybody just practice and you'll get away through it now let's say you're by yourself and here's how to practice seeing your own aura we're gonna start with your hand and so what you want to do is just like with a person you want to find a plain background white black whatever and you want to extend your hand in front of you now you want to soften your gaze and actually you want to stare right at the center of your palm kind of like you're looking at the person's nose so you're looking at it but in a relaxed way and you want to look around the edges of your hand and your fingers and ever so slowly you want to start squishing your fingers together and then spreading them apart and just see if you're gonna notice an outline around your fingers just squish them together and then spread them apart and if you squish your fingers together then just start moving your hand like you're waving at yourself just kind of slowly side to side and it's the same thing just like with a person as you're just trying to notice that faint outline first and once you catch the outline sometimes the movement helps but once you catch that faint outline you want to stop and then just want to in a relaxed way just focus I'm trying to bring the armed war into view the movement is just trying to get the ore to move into just the right spot in your peripheral vision and then sometimes you'll notice it just kind of pops right out and here's the cool thing you can also do with your foot I used to do this all the time when I was lying in bed I'd wake up in the morning you know 15 minutes early and I would just move my foot I would just twist it back and forth and I would look at the aura around my toes and study my foot the next video I'm gonna show you how to be able to see energy in the air here's the cool thing it's not really in the air it's everywhere so you're gonna learn how you can see energy everywhere if you're able to see the aura share your excitement include a comment below telling us about it then join us on Facebook that's all for today thanks for watching and I'll see you next time

Free energy salt water & magnets with light bulbs – Experiment science projects at home



Views:2687248|Rating:4.31|View Time:4:35Minutes|Likes:20553|Dislikes:3297
Free energy salt water & magnets with light bulbs – Experiment science projects at home

[음악] won [음악] 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 toronto on 오 오 오 오 오 오 오 lee 오 오 오 오 오 오 오 [음악] to o to 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 [음악] 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 으 [음악]

The Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology, 2016, lecture 2



Views:16279|Rating:4.78|View Time:1:28:31Minutes|Likes:151|Dislikes:7
The Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology, 2016: The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. Prof Sean Carroll, Caltech

Lecture 2. The Stuff of Which We Are Made: There is much that we don’t know about the universe, but there is also much that we do know – and that knowledge includes a set of ingredients and rules that suffices to completely account for the stuff underlying our everyday experience. We are collections of vibrating quantum fields, obeying a set of laws known as the Core Theory. Future discoveries will teach us much about the nature of reality, but the basic picture of the particles and forces that make up you and me is secure.

Physics – Test Your Knowledge: Energy (24 of 33) Will the Block Slide Down?



Views:477|Rating:5.00|View Time:5:48Minutes|Likes:23|Dislikes:0
Visit for more math and science lectures!

In this video we will determine how far, d=?, a block will travel, and if the block will slide down a 20 degree incline with a frictional-force=15N, and v0=8m/s.

To donate:

Next video in this series can be seen at:

welcome to our lecture line our next problem deals with a block that is pushed up a hill it's given an initial velocity of 8 meters per second but since its friction and regaining height eventually the block will come to a stop at the end the block will gain a certain amount of height and the velocity at that point will be zero now the question is is the friction force sufficient to keep the block from sliding back down the hill once it's reached its maximum height and reach the farthest distance D so we're going to find the distance D and then we're going to determine if the block will slide back down the hill so to find the distance D will use the energy conservation equation all right that the work put into the system plus the original potential energy plus the original kinetic energy equals the final potential energy plus the final kinetic energy plus any energy loss due to friction and yes indeed the restriction so energy will be lost there's no work put into the system because we're using the original kinetic energy so we don't have to put in a work term so that's zero plus it starts from zero height up the original kinetic energy will be one-half MV squared the final potential energy will be MGH it'll be no kinetic energy at the end because the block is not moving and the energy lost will be forced friction times distance now the height can be written in terms of the distance we can say that the height final will be equal to the hypotenuse which is a distance times the sine of the angle theta because it's the opposite side to the triangle so let's go ahead and plug that in so end up with one half and V squared equals MGH plus the friction force let's see here friction force that would be 15 multiplied times the distance which would be oh wait a minute distance height no we're going to change the distance we're going to write in terms of eight because that way we'll solve for H so let's this was the age divided by sine of theta or maybe we want to change this age to distance let's do that that's probably better let's go ahead and instead of H well write what H is equal to that would be D sine theta the sine theta plus the friction force which is 15 times D and then we can factor out a D install for D so let's see here we have one half and the squared is equal to M G D sine theta and the friction force would be let's see here mm-hmm that would be plus 15 times D what I wanted to do is factor out the D right so plus 15 and the D is factored out that's better okay now we'll solve for D so D is equal to one-half MV squared divided by mg sine theta plus 15 and now let's calculate what the D is because I will come up here we have lots of board space so D equals 1/2 times the mass which is 4 times the initial velocity squared that would be 8 squared divided by mg that would be 4 times 9.8 times a sine of 20 degrees and plus 15 for the friction force all right let's see what that's equal to so we have 4 times 9.8 times the sine of 20 equals at 15 to death move that to the numerator then multiply it times 0.5 times 4 and times 8 square root of 64 equals and that gives us four point 506 let's see here so distance equals four point five zero six meters so that's the distance of the hill now will the blog begin to slide back hmm we know the friction force is 15 Newtons that would be the kinetic friction force which means the static friction force will be a little bit higher but let's say it's the same so how do we determine that notice we have an mg acting downward we have the perpendicular component which is mg cosine theta and we have the parallel component which is mg sine theta and if mg sine theta is larger than the friction force the block will slide so is the question is the M G sine theta greater than 15 Newton's question mark if the answer is yes the block will begin to slide back down the hill so let's figure that out so we have M is 4G is 9.8 and we multiply times the sine of 20 degrees and question mark is that greater than 15 Newtons all right so we have 4 times 9.8 times 20 sine equals that's 13.4 Newton's so 13.4 Newtons is that greater question mark than 15 Newtons and the answer of course is no therefore block will not slide all right and that is how it's done

Physics – Test Your Knowledge: Energy (25 of 33) Where will the Block Stop?



Views:528|Rating:5.00|View Time:8:51Minutes|Likes:35|Dislikes:0
Visit for more math and science lectures!

In this video we will find how many times a block of m=5kg will bounce between 2 spring of different spring constants across a frictionless and friction surface and where will the block come to rest, x2=?

To donate:

Next video in this series can be seen at:

welcome to our lecture online now here we have a fun problem not that it's not difficult to do but it is a fun problem and what's going on here well we have two Springs one on either end we first push a block that has a mass of five kilograms against the first spring and compress it a distance of 0.15 meters notice the spring constant of both Springs is the same 200 Newtons per meter we let go also notice that for most of the route between the two Springs there's no coefficient of friction it's equal to zero so therefore there's no friction but there's a small patch of distance of 25 centimeters or 0.25 meters where the coefficient of friction is 0.08 so there's going to be some loss of energy but then the block presuming it gets passed this will bump into the spring compress the spring so the first question is how much will that spring be compressed then the block will get pushed back we'll go over the rough patch again will compress the spring over here then it'll go back and forth and back and forth until all the energy is lost on the right rough patch and eventually it will stop somewhere on the rough patch the question is where so we want to answer what is the first compression of spring – how many times does the block go across the rough patch and finally where's the block finally stop so the way we're going to solve this problem is first calculate how much initial energy the block starts with so the initial energy is going to be potential energy so potential energy initial which is the initial energy of the system which is going to be 1/2 K x squared so let's go ahead and calculate that how much energy the system starts with so that means we have 1/2 the spring constant times the distance 0.15 squared and let's see how much energy that is 0.15 squared times 100 which is 2.25 joules now let's calculate how much energy is lost when it goes across the rough patch so energy lost each time it goes across the rough patch is equal to well that would be the work it requires to go across that rough patch which is force times distance it's a friction force times distance and how do we calculate the friction force well when the block is on top of the rough patch and let's put the block over here for a moment then you can see that we'll have the weight mg the normal force n which means that the friction force is going to be equal to the normal force times mu which is equal to M G mu all right so the friction force is going to be equal to M G mu and we have to multiply times the distance the length of that rough patch let's plug in the numbers and see what we get so the mass of the 5 g is 9.8 u is 0.08 and the distance is 0.25 so how much energy do we lose or does the block lose every time it cross the path so it's 49 times point zero eight times 0.25 which is 0.98 joules so let's go ahead and plug this in I may not play them it circles around it so actually we can already answer the second question how many times will the blog go across the rough patch well each time the blog goes across it loses almost 1 joule and the block starts off with a little bit over 2 joules so we lose almost 1 joule going this way almost another jewel that's almost 2 joules going this way and it will not be enough energy to go across it a third time because then the initial energy would require at least or almost 3 joules so the answer for number 2 is 2 times completely but then it will stop on the third pass through from left to right so go from left to right right to left and back left to right but it will not make it all the way across the third time so that the third question is how far will it go before it comes to a complete stop all right but now let's answer the first question what is the compression of the spring on the other side and for that we can use our energy equation we could say that work put into the system plus the original potential energy plus the initial initial kinetic energy equals potential energy final plus kinetic energy final plus the energy lost to overcoming friction so in this case we have zero work put in the initial potential energy was 2.25 joules plus the kinetic energy initial is zero because it starts at rest potential energy final is going to be one-half K x2 squared plus zero kinetic energy because when spring 2 is completely compressors no motion and energy loss will be 0.98 joules but other words when I subtract point 9a from both sides I get one point two seven joules is equal to one-half KX 2 squared which means if we come over here and finish that up we can say that X 2 squared is equal to two times one point two seven divided by K or X sub two is equal to the square root of two times one point two seven divided by 200 which means the amount of compression of the second spring one point two seven times two divided by two hundred and take the square root of that would be zero point zero zero point one one three meter so x2 is equal to zero point one one three meters so notice it start out with compressing X 1.15 meters then it goes over there it loses some of the energy then the compression will be point one one three meters it will come back across a patch then back on to the patch so here we could say our first answer is X up two equals zero point 1 1 3 meters and finally 3 where does it come to a complete stop so notice how much energy is left after it's gone through the second time and now it's trying to get through the patch the third time so on the third pass we start with the initial energy energy initial which is 2.25 joules – 0.98 for the first pass and – 0.98 joules for the second pass so that means that the energy left is this minus that that would be 0.29 joules that's how much energy is left and then how much are that then how far does that get us onto that rough patch so we could say that energy initial equals energy lost and of course energy initial will then be equal to the friction force times distance or distance equals energy initial divided by friction force and energy initial is zero point two nine jewels and the friction force is where do we find the friction force we calculated it it will be mg mu so that would be mg mu it so that makes the distance is equal to zero point two nine divided by the mass which is five kilograms times 9.8 all right let's see here time time point eight times mu which is zero point zero eight and therefore how far will go across the rough patch point two nine divided by 5 divided by nine point eight divided by point zero eight equals and there it is it is zero point zero seven four meters or seven point four centimeters so that's how far the block will go on the third pass not make it all the way across and the block will stop at that point and that is how it's done

Are perpetual motion machines possible?



Views:4939670|Rating:4.54|View Time:5:4Minutes|Likes:55782|Dislikes:5595
A wheel that spins forever; a bird that never quenches its thirst; a clock that never stops ticking, an endless source of free energy. These are but the dreams of inventors striving to make perpetual motion machines, machines that can work forever without any energy input. Are these machines possible without violating the laws of physics? No.




Help us translate our videos!

Unbalanced wheel designed, laser cut and assembled by engineer Kyle Kitzmiller – kylekitzmiller.com

Writer: Sophia Chen
Editors: Jabril Ashe and Dianna Cowern
Host: Dianna Cowern

Weather footage: NASA Goddard

Zimara’s Windmill drawing: Burton Lee Potterveld

Cox’s Timepiece drawing – Mr. Cox’s Perpetual Motion, a Prize in the Museum Lottery, single sheet, 225mm. x 174mm., full-page engraving with letterpress on verso, London, 1774. (Ex) Item 4848706

Music: APM and YouTube

Perpetual Motion Machines
Impossible Machines

[موسيقى] ماذا لو قلت لك أنني بنيت آلة تخلق طاقة من العدم؟ تصميمي العبقري يعمل كالتالي: عندما تدور العجلة، تقع النقود المعدنية في الفتحات بحيث يكون جانب واحد من العجلة دائماً أثقل من الآخر، ما يسبب جذب ذاك الجانب للأسفل، وبذلك فالعجلة لن تتوقف عن الدوران ودون حتى دفعة واحدة، فإن هذه العجلة ستدور للأبد فكروا بالإمكانيات وراء هذا الإكتشاف فقد أستطيع أن أبني أسطولا ضخماً من المولدات الريحية التي تدور دون رياح لتولد طاقة تكفي العالم كله ولن نحتاج أن نستهلك الوقود الأحفوري أبدا وستحل مشكلة تغير المناخ. دعونا نرى إن كانت تعمل، أو لا تعمل، لأنها في الواقع لا تعمل. لربما رأيتم هذه العجلة من قبل وثمة سبب لعدم نجاعتها – وهو قوانين الفيزياء، ولكن أيضا الإحتكاك هنا على المحور، سيمنع أية عجلة من الإستمرار بالدوران في النهاية وهناك أيضا سبب آخر وهو الجاذبية، إذ أن ما حدثتكم به منذ قليل عن كون أحد جانبي العجلة أثقل من الآخر كان مضللا والسبب هو طريقة تأثير الجاذبية على العجلات تخيل عجلة عادية مركز كتلتها هو محورها الآن، تخيل عجلة بداخلها قطعة نقدية واحدة قد تتأرجح ذهابا وإيابا بضع مرات، لكنها لن تدور أضف قطعة ثانية أضف قطعة ثالثة ستتأرجح العجلة قليلا ثم تتباطأ إلى أن تقف عندما يكون مركز جاذبيتها في أدنى موضع له، دائماً، إذا، ستتأرجح العجلة غير المتوازنة جيئة وذهابا كرقاص الساعة إلى أن يوقفه الإحتكاك. هذه العجلة هي آلة حركة دائبة وهي جهاز يزعم أنها تتحرك دون أن تستهلك أية طاقة. المعلق: لكن أكثر أحلام المخترعين إلحاحا على الإطلاق كان الحصول على شيء دون مقابل وذلك بصنع آلة تشغل نفسها بنفسها، وتتغلب على كل الإحتكاك، وأن تملك طاقة بعد ذلك تكفي للقيام بعمل مفيد — بإختصار: آلات حركة دائبة. وفي حالات لا حصر لها في التاريخ، زعم الكثيرون أنهم قد صنعوا آلة حركة دائبة: عجلة الزئبق غير المتوازنة ل_ باسكارا في القرن الثاني عشر طاحونة زايمارا التي تنفخ رياحها بنفسها في القرن السادس عشر وعاء الأنابيب الشعرية التي تدفع الماء للأعلى وجرس أوكسفورد الكهربائي الذي يتذبذب لتنافر الشحنات، وإلى ما هنالك. في الواقع، توقف مكتب براءات الاختراع الأمريكي عن منح براءات الاختراع عن آلات الحركة الدائبة دون نموذج أولي يعمل. السبب وراء عدم معرفتكم بساعة كوكس مثلا وأنكم لا تستخدمون وعاء الأنابيب الشعرية لتشغيل هاتفكم الذكي هو أن آلات الحركة الدائبة لا قيمة لها في عالم الفيزياء ووجودها مستحيل. هذه لعبة الطائر الشارب المعروفة يدنو الطائر من كأس الماء ثم يستقم ثم يدنو مرة أخرى، مرارا وتكرارا وكأنه لا يرتوي من الماء أبدا أين هو مصدر الطاقة في درجة حرارة الغرفة، داخل الطائر ثمة جزء سائل وآخر بخاري يحتوي الطائر على مادة تدعى ثنائي كلور الميتان dichloromethane، نفس المادة هذه يحتويها هذا الطائر الصغير تغلي هذه المادة عند درجة حرارة أقل بكثير من درجة غليان الماء عندما يغمس ​​الطائر منقاره في الماء، يبرد رأسه وبحسب قانون الغازات المثالي فإن:
PV = nkT الضغط المتشكل بالجزء العلوي من الطائر أقل من الضغط في الجزء السفلي منه يدفع فرق الضغط هذا السائل إلى الجزء العلوي من الرأس يزداد وزن رأس اللعبة فيهوي للأسفل وعندما يهوي الرأس، يتعرض أسفل الأنبوب للبخار فيرتقي للأعلى ويدفع السائل ليعود إلى الأسفل ثم يقف الطائر وتتكرر الدورة ولكنها ليست حركة دائبة فهناك مصدر للطاقة يجعل هذا الطائر يشرب مرارا وتكرارا، ولكن من الصعب تحديده مصدر الطاقة لهذا الطائر هو الحرارة المحيطة في الغرفة تحملوني قليلا تقوم الماء بتبريد منقار الطائر مسببة فرقا حراريا بين الأعلى والأسفل، ما أسفر عن فرق في الضغط الذي أجبر السائل أن يتدفق للأعلى لينكس رأس الطائر عندما تعادل الضغط، تعادلت أيضا حرارة الجزء العلوي والسفلي ولكن بحرارة أقل قليلا عما كانت عليه قبل أن تبدأ الدورة ثم يسخن الطائر من حرارة الغرفة مرة أخرى وبهذا نكون قد حددنا مصدر الطاقة الخفي تناوب الدورة هذا بين الضغط والحرارة هو ما يسبب الطقس على كوكب الأرض، ورغم أن الطقس والرياح والعواصف لا يتوقفون إلا أن حرارة الشمس هي ما يغذيهم إذا، حتى طقس كوكب الأرض ليس آلة حركة دائبة حسنا، هناك سبب جوهري وراء استحالة وجود هذه الآلات وهو ما يسمى بقانون مصونية الطاقة الذي ينص على أن الطاقة لا تفنى ولا تخلق من العدم. لا يوجد ما يسمى بالطاقة المجانية إذا رأيتم آلة تنتج حركة، حرارة، ضوء أو شكلا من أشكال الطاقة، إبحثوا عن مصدر الطاقة سأكرر كلامي، إبحثوا عن مصدر الطاقة وها قد عرفتم الآن عندما يقول لكم أحدهم أنه قد صنع آلة حركة دائبة قولوا له إذهب وإلعب بعيدا. شكرا جزيلا لمتابعتكم. الأمر بغاية البساطة، وأنتم أيضا بسطاء إن ظننتم أنها تعمل المعلق: لا يحصل المرء على شيء دون مقابل. موسيقى

The Ideal Diet for Humans | Galit Goldfarb | TEDxWilmington



Views:2740831|Rating:4.56|View Time:16:22Minutes|Likes:32285|Dislikes:3125
Galit Goldfarb begins with her own story — becoming bulimic as a teen, and determining to learn all she could about science and nutrition in college, and yet still not achieving health. She studied medical science, opening a clinic after her return. But everyone she treated felt better only in the short-term. She was also diagnosed with cancer. She began to learn all about human health, reading from all the scientific fields until she was able to understand the answer: the guerilla diet (food choices that fight back against everything she had learned!). Goldfarb takes us through ancient human history, demonstrating evidence of the earliest humans’ health and diet (living into their 70s and eating plants, nuts, fruits, and legumes) and how humans moved shortsightedly away from that diet. Cancer free (without radiation), her final argument is simple — while an “omnivore” diet may in the short term taste better, in the long term, it is unhealthy, not only for us but for our planet.

Galit Goldfarb has worked within the health field for over 22 years. While working in different research laboratories and with many private clients, Galit has written eight books in the fields of health and personal development, including #1 International Bestseller “The Guerrilla Diet & Lifestyle Program” based on her in-depth research into the ideal diet for humans. Galit is a Professional member of the American Nutrition Association, and the American Society for Nutrition, and holds a BSc (honours) in Biochemistry and Nutrition, an MSc in Medical Science with Distinction, and studied Immunology for a Post Graduate Certificate. Galit is currently doing her PhD in Nutrition. Galit offers workshops, speaking engagements, online programs and coaching to help people achieve optimal health.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at

how I send my daughters to school every day to ensure that they're eating a healthy meal it's not always easy for them they come and ask me why can't we just eat what everybody else is eating and I tell them if more parents would know what I know then they'd probably be serving this food in the schools and we wouldn't have to send you with food and that is why I'm here because I didn't always know what I know today but I sure wish I did 1.9 billion people in the world today are overweight that's over a quarter of the population and it's not only to do with the amount of calories we are eating seven out of ten people suffer from chronic diseases and 50% of the population take medication on a daily basis for the rest of their lives but why because we are led to believe that what we are currently eating is actually normal but it's not we are conforming to society and allowing big companies to sell us stuff that we really don't want to be eating I'm here to talk about the ideal diet for humans a diet that can transform your life reverse disease your health reverse disease and help you lose weight naturally now when I say diet I know it has some negative connotations with a lot of people so when I say diet I am referring to food choices and when I say the ideal diet for humans I'm talking about the ideal food choices for humans for you and for you and for me and for all of us so how do I know this is the ideal diet for humans for all of us let me tell you a little bit about my story before I get into the details of the diet for 26 years of my life I've been searching for the keys to health and weight loss at the age of 16 my parents got divorced and my father whom we stayed with had a new woman in his life and she cooked completely different foods from what I was used to she used lots of butter and cream and salt and her dishes they were so tasty that I found myself growing and this was not very fun for me as a teenager my self-esteem was going down the drain and soon followed a decade a half of the eating disorder bulimia I hated myself and I hated my body so I decided to go and study more about nutrition and health and I went on to complete a Bachelor of Science and nutrition and biochemistry I went on to study immunology and then I studied many alternative medicine diplomas as well but at that same time that I was studying I also started a family and as fate had it my two eldest daughters were born with a genetic defect that led them to suffer from severe mental retardation and epilepsy it was devastating for me it was like my whole world collapsed on me and I just couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel so I went to do what I know how to do best and that is to research first solution I went on to study medical science I completed my degree with with distinction and decided to go and help more people with the knowledge I learned so I opened the health and weight-loss clinic but I soon noticed that my clients my daughters and me personally were only having temporary results and this was very frustrating for me and then what happened may seem like yet another curse in my life but it actually transformed my life for the better dramatically at the age of 40 I got a wake-up call I was diagnosed with cancer now by that time I had four daughters there was no way I was going to get a book give up on my life I was going to heal myself and do it fast by that time I knew that the environment of ourselves creates the destiny of ourselves a healthy cell environment will create healthy thriving cells and an unhealthy cell environment will create disease cells that will soon die now there are many factors that influence the environment of ourselves the the amount of sleep we have the amount of stress we have the amount of physical activity the amount of toxins in our environment and our mindset the way we think our attitude these influence the environment of ourselves but there is one thing that actually creates the foundation for the environment of ourselves and that is our food very simply our food either supplies ourselves with the nutrients they need in order to thrive or fails to do so so in fact our diet is even more important as a determining factor of our health destiny than our genes are because our the environment of ourselves actually determines which genes are expressed and which are not and they also help us create a healthy gut Mak microbiome so obviously the environment of my cells and my diet was not perfect but I what was I doing wrong with all my studies I still didn't know which foods lead to health and which do not and I found that I was not alone with this confusion so I decided to do the research myself I paused my business for a for a period of two and a half years and read countless books papers articles and essays from all of the scientific fields together and by putting together the information from all these different scientific fields the ideal diet for humans emerged at first I was thinking about calling it the gorilla diet because I I thought we evolved from the Apes and our dietary needs may be similar but I soon learned that this is not the case and I changed the name to gorilla diet as in guerrilla warfare why because I felt that I had to combat all that I thought knew and was taught was healthy for me so would you like to know what the ideal diet for humans is well the journey begins three and a half million years ago in the rainforests of Africa where all of us that are alive today come from three-and-a-half million years ago an evolutionary change allowed us to become bipedal which is walking on two limbs rather than a knuckle walking we shared with the Apes this major evolutionary change came especially to our benefit 1 million years later with the dawn of the Ice Age the ice age caused the rainforests of Africa to shrink in size leading to more competition over foods being bipedal allowed us to leave the rainforests of Africa and to move to the growing savanna grasslands and once we reach the savannas we needed to adapt and we needed to do it fast look at the differences in a very short period of time with evolutionary we started to go undergo major evolutionary changes we started to shed our body hair our teeth became smaller more similar to those of modern humans and our protruding belly that we shared who the Apes diminished in size anatomically and our brains doubled and later with the with the control of fire tripled in size for such major evolutionary changes to occur a major factor needed to change and that factor was our food that's right very simply the foods that were available in the rainforests of Africa we're different from the foods that were available on the savannas in fact the foods that were available on the savannas allowed us to progressively lead longer and healthier lives research by Professor James R Kerry shows that ancient humans were living past the age of 70 if they managed to survive childhood and women were already living past menopause age 1.8 million years ago so which were the foods that were allowing us to thrive as a species that we were eating on the savannas well if you'd ask most people they tell you it was meat since the savannas are full with animals however the savannas are full with lean animals with hardly any body fat and high levels of protein now when we consume high levels of protein with very little fat we will develop a condition called mal de Cali boo rabbit starvation which leads to ammonia buildup in our blood and mineral losses and eventually to our death furthermore a professor of archaeology John Dee's Beth points out that even modern hunter gatherers with a modern sized brains are only successful in their hunting expeditions three percent of the time and when they do finally catch an animal they usually don't even share it with family members but only share it with fellow hunters and they usually hunt at times when other foods are found in plenitude he came to the conclusion that we were hunting big animals for social and political issues rather than to put food on the table so meat could not have been this stable food source that allowed our brains to grow and for such major evolutionary changes to occur so what were the foods that were found in plenitude on the savannas well number one grass grains they were found in wide variety and in abundance in fact research shows from our dental calculus ancient human teeth and isotope research the shows that we were consuming them in abundance and plants vegetables with underground storage organs they grow underground therefore they had hardly any other competitors on the savannas these include root vegetables onions carrots yams beets and cassava also legumes were found in plenitude in wide variety and so were fruits and nuts and seeds but there was more competition over those notice how these foods are rich in carbohydrates and in fats needed to grow for our growing brain to develop our brain uses up over 20% of our metabolic energy expenditure at rest now what about dairy products well dairy foods were only introduced into our diet in populations that migrated Out of Africa to northern European countries about 6,000 years ago but they decided to have bitchu a cows for their milk in order to overcome food scarcity in the winter but they soon noticed that they couldn't utilize the milk from dairy from the cows because of its high lactose levels the lactose is the sugar found in dairy products so humans like other mammals lose our ability to digest lactose after infancy so we clever humans found a way to overcome this and we made milk into cheese and in this process we lose a lot of lactose but there are other problems associated with consuming milk from a different mammal for example the protein molecule from cow's milk is a much larger molecule than the whey protein found in human milk this large molecule when it enters our digestive system it causes disruption and may lead to internal wounding and even bleeding anemia even cancer and also human milk has practically the lowest levels of protein in comparison with other mammals so we also have very low levels of calcium but high levels of unsaturated fats and carbohydrates which are needed for our survival and just goes to show where we should be putting our focus when we are eating so where did our all for animal protein ever begin well it probably began at around an early 1900s with the discovery of a disease called quashahaw in populations that were dependent on processed grains for their staple foods very simply the processed grain the the whole grain can last and be stored for about six months so the Industrial Revolution popularized food processing for storage and transport purposes so a whole grain that could last for six months when it was processed could now be stored for three decades but the processing removes all the wealth of nutrients found in the bran and germ layer and we are left basically with the endosperm empty calories with a lot of gluten so so these populations that were dependent on processed grains for their food for their staple food started to develop protein deficiency but once their diet was supplemented with animal products they immediately healed and the World Health Organization took these findings very seriously and declared protein deficiency as a world crisis but if these populations would have been eating whole grains and foods from their natural habitat they would have never developed protein deficiency in the first place by personally following the ideal diet for humans I managed to heal from the disease I am now four years cancer-free without the radiation therapy without the radiation therapy I was recommended but not only that I also lost all of my excess weight so why did I lose my excess weight because when we supply ourselves with the nutrients they need then this automatically removes any overeating and food cravings so I'm sure by now you're wondering whether all of us have the same dietary needs well research by Professor Markus Feldman of Stanford University points out that all humans alive today share a DNA sequence that is 99.9% identical meaning we practically have the same DNA as each other and very similar to that of our prehistoric forefathers therefore for the most part we do have the same diet Rainey's as each other and as our prehistoric forefathers had just as you would expect to animals of the same species to have the same dietary needs we're always focusing on our differences but we are basically practically all the same in fact with all the research available it is a wonder that we are still living practically till the same age as ancient humans were living if they managed to survive childhood we should be living long and healthy energetic lives and when we maintain a healthy cell environment and eat our ideal diet there is no reason why we should settle for anything less and in fact this diet there are no excuses because this diet is the cheapest diet whole grains legumes vegetables and plain clean water these are the cheapest foods but not only are they cheap on our pocket they are also cheap on our planet when we consume our ideal diet and eat in each of us chooses to consume only half of the animal protein that we are currently consuming we reduce greenhouse gas emissions we reduce the need for a lot of deforestation we influence world hunger positively and we reduce the amount of pollution to our water air and soil and also reduce a lot of unnecessary animal cruelty so now it comes down to the final choice maker the tastehh well I won't lie to you unnatural foods processed foods and meat with lots of fats they taste much better because they are designed that way they are made that way billions of dollars are put into this industry to make these foods as pleasurable and experienced as possible however when we consume these foods we will only feel good while we are eating them whereas when we consume our ideal diet we will feel good long after our meal is over and it doesn't take a long time to get used to get used to what we originally so in the Bible it says life and death are in the power of your own tongue it's true life and death are in the power of our food choices remember we have one body in one planet and our two food choices influence them both it's time for a health revolution and we can all start by making better food choices today we owe it to ourselves thank you very much

Mysteries of a Dark Universe



Views:1145441|Rating:4.79|View Time:25:1Minutes|Likes:6678|Dislikes:292
Cosmology, the study of the universe as a whole, has been turned on its head by a stunning discovery that the universe is flying apart in all directions at an ever-increasing rate.

Is the universe bursting at the seams? Or is nature somehow fooling us?

The astronomers whose data revealed this accelerating universe have been awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics.

And yet, since 1998, when the discovery was first announced, scientists have struggled to come to grips with a mysterious presence that now appears to control the future of the cosmos: dark energy.

On remote mountaintops around the world, major astronomical centers hum along, with state of the art digital sensors, computers, air conditioning, infrastructure, and motors to turn the giant telescopes.

Deep in Chile’s Atacama desert, the Paranal Observatory is an astronomical Mecca.

This facility draws two megawatts of power, enough for around two thousand homes.

What astronomers get for all this is photons, tiny mass-less particles of light. They stream in from across time and space by the trillions from nearby sources, down to one or two per second from objects at the edge of the visible universe.

In this age of precision astronomy, observers have been studying the properties of these particles, to find clues to how stars live and die, how galaxies form, how black holes grow, and more.

But for all we’ve learned, we are finding out just how much still eludes our grasp, how short our efforts to understand the workings of the universe still fall.

A hundred years ago, most astronomers believed the universe consisted of a grand disk, the Milky Way. They saw stars, like our own sun, moving around it amid giant regions of dust and luminous gas.

The overall size and shape of this “island universe” appeared static and unchanging.

That view posed a challenge to Albert Einstein, who sought to explore the role that gravity, a dynamic force, plays in the universe as a whole.

There is a now legendary story in which Einstein tried to show why the gravity of all the stars and gas out there didn’t simply cause the universe to collapse into a heap.

He reasoned that there must be some repulsive force that countered gravity and held the Universe up.

He called this force the “cosmological constant.” Represented in his equations by the Greek letter Lambda, it’s often referred to as a fudge factor.

In 1916, the idea seemed reasonable. The Dutch physicist Willem de Sitter solved Einstein’s equations with a cosmological constant, lending support to the idea of a static universe.

Now enter the American astronomer, Vesto Slipher.

Working at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, he examined a series of fuzzy patches in the sky called spiral nebulae, what we know as galaxies. He found that their light was slightly shifted in color.

It’s similar to the way a siren distorts, as an ambulance races past us.

If an object is moving toward Earth, the wavelength of its light is compressed, making it bluer. If it’s moving away, the light gets stretched out, making it redder.

12 of the 15 nebulae that Slipher examined were red-shifted, a sign they are racing away from us.

Edwin Hubble, a young astronomer, went in for a closer look. Using the giant new Hooker telescope in Southern California, he scoured the nebulae for a type of pulsating star, called a Cepheid. The rate at which their light rises and falls is an indicator of their intrinsic brightness.

By measuring their apparent brightness, Hubble could calculate the distance to their host galaxies.

Combining distances with redshifts, he found that the farther away these spirals are, the faster they are moving away from us. This relationship, called the Hubble Constant, showed that the universe is not static, but expanding.

Einstein acknowledged the breakthrough, and admitted that his famous fudge factor was the greatest blunder of his career.

cosmology the study of the universe as a whole has been turned on its head by a stunning discovery that the universe is flying apart in all directions at an ever-increasing rate is the universe bursting at the seams or is nature somehow fooling us the scientists whose data revealed this accelerating universe have been awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics and yet since 1998 when the discovery was first announced scientists have struggled to come to grips with the mysterious presence that now appears to control the future of the cosmos dark energy on remote mountaintops around the world major astronomical centers harm Allah with state-of-the-art digital sensors computers air-conditioning infrastructure and motors to turn the giant telescopes deep in Chile's Atacama Desert the Paranal Observatory is an astronomical Mecca this facility draws two megawatts of power enough for around 2,000 homes what astronomers get for all this is photons tiny massless particles of light they stream in from across time and space by the trillions from nearby sources down to one or two per second from objects at the edge of the visible universe in this age of precision astronomy observers have been studying the properties of these particles to find clues to how stars live and die our galaxies form how black holes grow but for all we've learned we are finding out just how much still eludes our grasp how short our efforts to understand the workings of the universe still for cosmology the study of the universe as a whole goes back to the ancient Greeks with no telescopes or other optical instruments to probe the Stars observers constructed models designed to make sense of what they saw their earliest theories stated that all matter in the universe is composed of some combination of four elements earth water fire and air each arises from opposing properties of heat and cold dry and wet acting upon more primitive forms of matter Aristotle took it a step further he held that the universe is divided into two parts the realm of earth in which everything is composed of the four substances and the realm of the stars and planets these bodies are made up of a fifth substance unchanging and incorruptible called ether or quintessence the Greek idea that the universe is a series of concentric circles with earth at the center yielded to a wealth of new discoveries about the universe that earth is a planet in a solar system located in a giant wheel of stars and gas a galaxy bound by gravity to a local group of 30 galaxies bound in turn to a cluster of over a thousand galaxies and to a super cluster with tens of thousands of galaxies this our cosmic region takes up a volume about 100 million light-years across set within a larger pattern of galaxies filaments super clusters and enormous empty vorlons earth is but a speck within a firmament so vast we can scarcely imagine for all we've learned from snatching photons the most basic nature of the universe has only grown more mysterious ironically modern models have recalled the mysterious Fifth Element conjured by the Greeks to explain a universe that appears to move in ways not easily explained to understand the predicament now faced by scientists let's see how they got there in the first place a hundred years ago most astronomers believe the universe consisted of a grand disk of stars and gas the Milky Way they saw stars like our own Sun moving around it amid giant regions of dust and luminous gas the overall size and shape of this island universe appeared static and unchanging that view posed a challenge to Albert Einstein who sought to explore the role that gravity a dynamic force plays in the universe as a whole there is an out legendary story in which Einstein tried to show why the gravity of all the stars and gas out there didn't simply cause the universe to collapse into a heap eery zijn that there must be some repulsive force that countered gravity and held the universe up he called this force the cosmological constant represented in his equations by the Greek letter lambda it's often referred to as a fudge factor in 1916 the idea seemed reasonable the Dutch physicist velum de sitter topped Einstein's equations with a cosmological constant lending support to the idea of a static universe now enter the American astronomer Vesto Slipher working at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona he examined a series of fuzzy patches in the sky called spiral nebulae what we know as galaxies he found that their light was slightly shifted in color you it's similar to the way a siren distorts as an ambulance races past us if an object is moving toward Earth the wavelength of its light is compressed making it blue if it's moving away the light gets stretched out making it redder 12 of the 15 nebulae that slifer examined were red shifted a sign they are racing away from us Edwin Hubble a young astronomer went in for a closer look using the giant new hooker telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory in Southern California he scoured the nebulae for a type of pulsating star called a Cepheid the rate at which they're light rises and falls is an indicator of their intrinsic brightness by measuring their apparent brightness Hubble could calculate the distance to their host galaxies combining distances with redshifts he found that the farther away these spirals are the faster they are moving away from us this relationship called the Hubble constant showed that the universe is not static but expanding Einstein acknowledged the breakthrough and admitted that his famous fudge factor was the greatest blunder of his career the discovery revolutionized astronomy because it redefined the universe as a dynamic realm but if he were around today Einstein would be surprised to see his own failed idea return if the universe is expanding it must have emerged from a dense and hot primordial state a cosmic fireball we now call the Big Bang would have supplied the initial kick even as the universe expanded gravity began drawing matter together into a web-like structure that gave rise to galaxies and stars if there's enough matter out there we'll gravity one day reign in the Big Bang and cause the universe to collapse in on itself to find out astronomers renewed Hubble's quest to precisely measure the cosmic expansion rate working with the Hubble Space Telescope and giant new observatories on land they sought to measure distances far deeper than Hubble ever could people are talking about doing precision cosmology for the first time because it used to be cosmology well we have a rough idea how big the universe is maybe to a factor of two or three but now with these new measurements were really getting a handle on the overall density and structure of the universe and what they're telling us is not what we expected to hear roubles mileage markers were the Cepheid today astronomers look for stars like our Sun in their death throes they spend their lives gradually consuming the hydrogen gas that makes up their cores at the end of the line the dying star swells and sheds its outer layers leaving behind a tiny dense sphere the size of Earth it's so dense that if you could scoop out a teaspoonful of matter from its core it would weigh a thousand metric tons if this white dwarf happens to orbit another dying star it may begin to draw upon the companions expanding outer layers at a critical threshold it can grow no more and it explodes scientists at the University of Chicago and Argonne National Lab have been simulating the thermonuclear reaction that begins deep within the star a nuclear flame sends hot ash rising to the surface it breaks out then begins to wrap around the star a collision on the other side of the star triggers the explosion because type 1a supernovae are all thought to explode in the same way and because they are extremely bright they are ideal for measuring extreme distances it's like looking at cars with identical headlights approaching on a highway the dimmer they appear the farther away they are by documenting explosions through the depth of the universe two groups of astronomers had hoped to find out how quickly gravity has been raining in the cosmos capturing the trickle of photons from events six or eight billion years ago would test the sensitivity of even the most powerful modern telescopes when they spotted a type 1a supernova astronomers looked at how much its light was shifted to the red the larger the shift the more the universe had expanded since the explosion they combined this measurement with its distance based on the apparent brightness of the supernovae some explosions looked dinner than expected based on their redshift that meant their light had traveled over a greater distance to reach us that led the two teams to the same conclusion but the cosmic expansion rate had been slower in the deep past for the universe to reach its current size the expansion had to actually accelerate scientists have known since the 1930s that the universe is not necessarily the way it appears back then astronomer Fritz Zwicky measured the rotation rate of spiral galaxies and found that their gravitational pull was over 100 times greater than what he expected based on the amount of matter he could see there must be some gravitational presence Vickey surmised that you can't see with a telescope he dubbed it dark matter scientists today have successfully recreated the structure of the universe in computer simulations by incorporating dark matter in the gravitational sources that sculpted galaxy clusters and filaments apparently we now bind out there's another unseen presence at work in the universe called dark energy and it's whisper thin for comparison's sake water has a density of one gram per cubic centimeter dark energy is a mere ten to the minus twenty ninth grams per cubic centimeter that's a point followed by twenty eight zeros into one the equivalent of five hydrogen atoms in a cubic meter in their scan of the early universe using the W map satellite scientists concluded that matter and dark matter account for only about 26% of the content of the universe the remainder then is dark energy since 1998 something totally unexpected happened which is we discovered that not only our universe is expanding this expansion is accelerating you know this is a classical who ordered that type situation in seventy percent or so is dark energy in the universe you know about 70% of the surface of the earth is covered with water imagine we didn't have a clue what water was this is the situation we're in so what exactly is it the simplest answer takes us back to Einstein and his repulsive force the cosmological constant it's the idea that empty space is actually a seething stew of particles popping in and out of existence it's a type of energy that is constantly welling up from the vacuum this description is reminiscent of the sudden and violent outpouring of energy that many scientists believe launched our universe in the first place long after the Big Bang vacuum energy exerted enough pressure over extremely large scales to push the universe out and as the universe grew larger more and more of it came into existence causing the expansion to accelerate another explanation takes its name from Aristotle's quintessence while similar to vacuum energy in theory it can vary over time there are still other theories one unifies dark energy and dark matter into a single dark fluid that alters the action of gravity on large scales another digs deep into a warren of hidden physics to suggest that the push of dark energy may one day turn to a pull this theory predicts that in about ten billion years the universe will begin cascading back together in a Big Crunch destined to reduce all of creation to the size of a proton is there a way out of all this cosmic confusion some scientists suggest that the findings derived from type 1a supernovae might be based on an illusion that the measurements are due not to cosmic acceleration but to large-scale factors we have not yet detected since Nicholas Copernicus showed that the earth rotates around the Sun cosmologists have based their theories on the idea that we exist in no special place in that case our view of the universe is similar to any other vantage point in the universe that assumption has allowed us to extrapolate what we see to a vast scale we concluded for example that the universe has expanded in a uniform manner that explains the uniform temperature of light from the early universe within which we can see a pattern of variations and it explains the uniform distribution of galaxies within which we see a pattern of filaments and clusters is it possible that we are still only seeing part of a much grander cosmic map it's like looking at a desert and assuming the rest of the world is flat when in fact it's filled with potions and mountain ranges perhaps there are non-uniform cosmic structures larger than our field of view forming bulges or bubbles for argument's sake if we are located in the center of a giant bubble then supernovae out on the fringes might seem to be accelerating away or if we're in a region of higher density the universe might appear headed for collapse for now it looks like the discovery of the accelerating universe is holding up scientists using NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer telescope confirm the finding by using galaxies in the distant universe as another kind of mileage marker as another check they calculated the speed that galaxies should collapse into clusters based on their collective gravity but data showed that something is holding them back and breaking their fall into the clusters the discovery of dark energy is a major accomplishment in this age of precision cosmology ironically its effects may will be lost on our distant descendants right now we're in the outer suburbs of a great cosmic metropolis the Virgo supercluster in time gravity will drag the Milky Way and the rest of the local group into the city limits then stir us into the giant melting pot of a mecha galaxy I then if the wider universe is accelerating outward we'll see little evidence of where it all came from distant galaxies visible today will begin to pass beyond our vision at speeds exceeding that of life both distant generations will know less about the nature of time and space than we do today for now as the data trickles in one photon at a time our minds struggle to unravel the mysteries of a dark universe as they race ever faster beyond our dim horizons you

Why is life the way it is? Michael Faraday Prize Lecture – Dr Nick Lane



Views:32730|Rating:4.91|View Time:1:4:14Minutes|Likes:458|Dislikes:8
Dr Nick Lane explores the importance of energy flow in shaping life from its very origins to the flamboyant complexity around us, and asks whether energy flow would direct evolution down a similar path on other planets.

The lecture was recorded on February 1 2017 at the Royal Society. For more events like this, see our schedule –

Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome
to the Royal Society. My name is Adrian Sutton, I'm standing in
for the Chairman of the Public Engagement Committee who is indisposed. It is a great privilege to be here to welcome
you and introduce Dr Nick Lane. Before I get on to that, I want to point out
some housekeeping points. First of all, please turn off your mobile
phones; putting them on silent is enough. But we don't want to hear any ringtones of
any kind. There are no planned fire evacuations; if
you hear the fire alarm it is serious. The fire escapes are those doors and also
the doors in the middle on your right over there. The event is being webcast and will be recorded
for the Royal Society's archives. We will also be using a speech-to-text service
for people who are hard of hearing. So tonight's talk is entitled Why is Life
The Way it Is? It is given by Dr Nick Lane, winner of the
2016 Michael Faraday Prize. It is awarded annually for excellence in science
public engagement. It recognises a scientist or engineer whose
expertise in communicating scientific ideas in lay terms is exemplary. Dr Lane can count himself amongst a list of
exceptional science communicators including Frank Close, David Attenborough, Frances Backwell,
Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Marcus du Sautoy, Brian Cox, Andrea Sella and Katherine Willis. Dr Lane is a reader in Evolutionary Biochemistry
in the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London. His research is about how energy shapes evolution,
in particular the way in which the very peculiar mechanisms of biological energy generation
forces evolution down unexpected paths. This perspective has tremendous breadth, cutting
right across the whole history of life from its very origin, nearly four billion years
ago, to the singular appearance of all complex life on earth to the structure of our own
cells and the way that affects our lives and deaths. Nick leads the UCL Research Frontiers Origins
of Life programme and was a founder of the consortium for mitochondria research. His work has been honoured by several awards
and prizes, but he is best known for his books on the evolution of life, which have been
translated into no less than 25 languages. His four books treat the grand sweep of evolution
from the origins of life to our own ageing and death. His books have been critically acclaimed,
being named among the books of the year by Nature, New Scientist, The Economist, The
Independent, The Times, the Sunday Times, The Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal. His book, Life Ascending won the Royal Society
prize for science books. He was described by The Independent as one
of the most exciting science writers of our time. And his most recent book – and I happen to
have a copy of it! – The Vital Question: Why is Life the Way
it Is? even came to the attention of Bill Gates who described it on his blog as an amazing
inquiry into the origins of life. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to present,
Dr Nick Lane. [Applause]
NICK: Thank you very much for the very kind introduction, and thank you all for coming,
I'm astonished so many people are here, we have an overflow room that is also full. Thank you very much for coming. It is a huge honour. I hardly need to say, the list of winners
of this prize in the past really number many of the people who inspired me as a child and
as an adult, and to be on that list is a bit overwhelming. Anyway, I will talk this evening about why
is life the way it is? Now I don't know what you make of that question,
this is actually the subtitle of the book in English. I tried my subtitles out on people and I said
mew subtitles (?) will be why is life like it is, and she said it's awful, I need a holiday! You can never quite predict how people will
react. The best title or subtitle of my books was
Power Sex Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life. I had to find some way of trying to sex up
mitochondria, trying to get people to read a book about mitochondria. And it is strange because I have noticed it
is not cited as widely as I would wish or as other books are. I think people are a little bit ashamed of
citing a book with such a salacious title; it looks as if they are not spending their
time wisely. It is curious that people can only remember
one word from that title! The best review said they gave up smoking
after reading my book about oxygen and approached this book with trepidation. Anyway … This question for tonight, Why
is Life the Way It Is? Even in a scientific context it might be strange
you might think, life is anyway way. These are just animals, I'm told the blob
fish is real there. It seems just about my morphological shape
or form or way of life or way of being exists on the earth. How can that question make any kind of sense? If we look at a genetic tree which shows the
relationship with different animals, we are here, you might be able to read that – it
looks again as if all the genetic space has been explored thoroughly by the animals that
exist already. We can go broader than that; this is the entire
tree and so we include plants up here and animals are over there, protists, single-celled
organisms, fungi here and bacteria and archaea. This is not a tree of life. It makes me think of Magritte who said this
is not a pipe, which must irritate some people. I read this quote that he says, well, can
you stuff this pipe, and no it is merely a representation of a pipe. What we need to understand about the tree
of life is that this is just a representation. But it goes beyond the problem with the representation. The representation, it looks as if all of
this space is completely full, as if there was almost nothing left to explore and that
is an issue with the presentation of it. But it is also a tree of a single gene. And if you were to construct a similar tree
from a different gene you would get a different tree. The branches would be in different places
and so it is the tree of a gene, and if you try to do a tree of life and you construct
it from all the genes, you get a very different picture. I will come on to some of that. The other issue with this tree is that the
bacteria and the archaea down here look trivial; it looks as if there aren't really any and
they are not very important and they are down at the bottom of the tree. It is a very misleading impression and again
you can understand if what we are really interested in are the animals up here and that is what
we have put the focus on, but as a representation it leaves something to be decided. This is going back now 20 years; this is an
equivalent tree using the same gene with a lot more perspective. It raises some really interesting questions. This is known as the three domains tree of
life. It was discovered by Carl Woese, who looks
rather like James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, and he pointed this out in 1978, he
discovered this group had a look a lot like bacteria called the archaea. Nobody really had much of an inkling they
existed at the time, he came up with a tree, this was 1990, showing tremendous variation
within the archaea. The lengths of these branches give an indication
of the amount of genetic variation within each group. So the bacteria are over here, the archaea
over here and animal, plants and fungi were constrained to this small corner of the tree,
and other Copernican pushing the humans over to a corner and it feels uncomfortable. As soon as you look at this tree, it begs
two questions – and this is one theme that I would like to try to bring out tonight from
this evening's lecture – that science is not really a collection of dusty facts at all,
it is a way of seeing the world, it is a way of testing those questions and trying to understand
how the world might work. And the kind of questions that we ask about
this are very simple, they are almost childlike questions, but it is easy to miss them. So why is it that these two groups have got
so much genetic variation and yet remain so simple? In terms of their morphology they haven't
changed very much, there is nothing like Carl Woese woes built from bacterial cells, it
simply doesn't exist. What was happening down this branch of the
tree of life that wasn't happening over here? You can tell just from looking at that that
it was not really anything specifically to do with genes because there is plenty of genetic
variation there, it just didn't lead to morphologically complexity. These are simple childlike questions but hit
you in the face as soon as you look at it. They don't hit new the face at all from this. So again it comes down to the representation. So there have been, what would happen, I suppose
the question here is what would happen if you were to wind back the clock, if you were
to come all the way back to the origin of life and let the clock play forward again,
would we end up with something like that or something quite different? And there is no agreement, this is another
theme from science that I would like to get across. There can be tremendous intellectual arguments
about the meaning of things. This is a very good example. On the left-hand side as you are looking at
it we have Monday Jacques Monod wrote a bleak book that we were alone in an empty
universe and it was really a French existential philosophical life. Steven Jay Gould rolled back the time and
then played it forward and say what would we get human beings, vertebrates, what kind
of animals would we get. His view and it was a view is you would get
something very different to what we had. The evolution that has taken place is contingent
on the circumstances. You have a meteorite that wipes out the dinosaurs
and that gives the mammals a chance to get hold and that is all it is. We have Christian de Duve and Simon Conway-Morris
one of the subjects of Steven Jay Gould's book and they both think far more in terms
of convergent evolution. The structural importance that if you want
to fly you need to have something like wings otherwise you will never get airborne. And so there are engineering principles that
force life down particular avenues. They see those avenues as being the most important. So these are different perceptions, but it
is important because you can say that it is simply counter factualism but the question
is can we predict anything about why life ended up this way rather than this way. Can you imagine what life might look like
in the universe, what kind of principles do we have to allow us get at those questions? These books written by these four are a wonderful
way of exploring the problem and laying out hypothesis, but the key things from a scientific
point of view is most of those are testable in one way or another, it depends on your
approach to the question. Here is how I see it. This is an indication of what's happened to
bacteria over four billion years and they have been flatlining! They ended up with, you know, about the same
degree of morphological complexity. We can see bacteria and archaea in the fossil
record from 3.5 billion years ago and they look a lot like that. They look like modern groups we see today. So what have they been doing? In their biochemistry, in their molecular
machines, they are fantastic, but in terms of their morphological complexity they are
surprisingly limited. What was going on, and why is it then that
complex life, everything really that we can see, has a common ancestry. It appeared once after about two billion years
of evolution and all of this amazing array of different life forms are closely related
and share a common ancestor that arose around there. It is another way of looking at the tree of
life. It is a very different one. Something abrupt happened, something odd happened
and we don't know what it was. I say we don't know, that doesn't mean to
say we don't have ideas, we have plenty of ideas, the question is how do you know which
one is correct? What forces constrain the evolution of bacteria,
why didn't they become large and complex, why not bacterial humans? How was it that the complex cells escaped,
the eukaryotic cells, I will talk more about them. Will these forces be similar on other planets? Could we guess what aliens look like, what
kind of constraints from first principles would apply to them. If we are going to ask this question, it is
really what is life? How do we think about it? This is Erwin Schrödinger who wrote a famous
book on that theme in 1943, I think. There were two famous ideas that emerged from
this book, one of them was the idea that genes are a code script. And that was the first time anybody had used
the word "code-script" or really thought in terms of information in biology. And he was absolutely correct. He talked – this was before DNA had been discovered
– he was a direct inspiration to Watson and Crick and many others. The second theme of the book was how life
maintains its organisation over time. Why don't we just fall to pieces as entropy
would like us? He talked about negative entropy. He talked about
a footnote and said if I was catering for physicists alone I would have let the discussion
turn on free energy instead. I would say to put all of that into more modern
terms he says something like life is the harnessing of chemical energy in such a way that the
energy-harnessing device makes a copy of itself. That is certainly how I would see he's linking
the two key themes of biology, information and energy, together. How do we generate energy, for want of a better
phrase? Well, these are our mitochondria, the powerhouses
of cells. So these are membranes inside and this is
where respiration is working at the level of oxygen and food reacting together to produce
the energy. There are in all of our cells we have in the
order of several thousand mitochondrias, hundreds to thousands of mitochondria. If you were to unravel all these membranes
here and lay them out you would have about four football pitches worth of membrane as
a surface area where respiration is going on. What is happening, and I'm not going to get
into any technical details, but effectively what we are doing is we are stripping electrons
from food as we're respiring. These are giant molecular complexions, so
we are stripping electrons from food and passing them down this what is called a respiratory
chain to oxygen. It is a current of electrons. As simple as that, that current of electrons
that is pouring the protons across the membrane. We have a reservoir of protons on this side. Here we have the ATP synthase; this is driving
energy production and a turbine in the membrane. ATP is the energy currency that drives absolutely
everything in our cells. These blobs that I'm showing you. The level of understanding required to understand
how these work, I just want to give an indication. So Sir John Walker won the Nobel Prize in
1997 for the structure of the ATP synthase. The turbine in the membrane. This is Sir John's own web page, this was
the state of knowledge in 1994; by the year 2000, he knew a little more. No structural information on the main part
of the main brain, this is only over 30 years this information has gradually been pieced
together. This is another key aspect of science, the
time it takes, it takes decades to get at these. It means determination and drive on the part
of the individuals and funding for those individuals over those kinds of periods of time to go
from a partial understanding of how something works to an extraordinarily detailed understanding
of how it works. We need to know that, but we also need to
conceptualise what does it actually mean, and the easiest conceptualisation for me is
a hydroelectric dam, this is very equivalent to what I have been showing you the water
equivalent to the protons. The turbine in the dam itself is equivalent
to the ATP synthase. This is how respiration works at the level
of cells. This idea was shocking, it goes back to 1961
with Peter Mitchell. This is in 1947 with Jennifer Moyle in Cambridge
at the time. He put this idea forward in 1961 that respiration
works by pumping protons across a membrane and he called it coupling. It was very mathematical and physical and
he tended to put a lot of people off, a lot of people got angry because they didn't understand
quite what he was talking about. He had a knack of winding people up! And so it took a long time for these ideas
to catch on. There was what was known as the ox/phos wars. It was a period of particular acrimony where
people shouted at each other in conferences and so on. It turned out another finding of science that
pretty much all of them were correct in one way or another. But Mitchell himself was the person who conceptualised
the whole thing. He thought the ATP synthase would not work
as it does as a motor and physically combining phosphate on to ATP, he swore that was not
how it was going to work, but that is how it worked. The overall idea, I think Leslie Orgel captured
it nicely, he said not since Darwin has biology come up with an idea that is counterintuitive
of those of Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrödinger. I think people until then talked about chemistry
and molecules interacting with each other, the idea that there was a structural intermediary
of a proton's difference across a membrane was shocking. Now Mitchell himself obviously saw the big
picture from the very beginning. This is from a conference in 1957 in Moscow
where just about anybody who was anybody was at the time. JD Burnell was there, all the communists were
there! Mitchell gave a talk at the same meeting. He said he cannot consider the organism without
its environment; from a formal point of view the two may be regarded as equivalent phases
between which dynamic contact is maintained by the membranes that separate and link them. He's really dissolving the environment, the
outside world, and the inside of the cell. It is a novel way of seeing things. I think this is important and has been largely
overlooked. Mitchell himself, that is 1946, here is from
around the time he won the Nobel Prize and I'm very struck that his hairstyle hasn't
changed at all in those 30 or 40 years. He looks exactly the same, just a bit older! So there is a big question about that though,
because this is a very complex way of structuring energy conservation. Why would you have a membrane? Why have this intermediary? Why should it work that way and how could
it have evolved in the first place; it is inherently complex. The fact is it is used by all cells. It is as universally conserved across all
of life as the genetic code itself. It is a shocking statement really that, but
this is just used by pretty much everything. So you would think that it goes right back
to very close to the beginning. So how on earth could it have evolved in the
first place? We can get some clues from the cells that
are the simplest they wills so methanogens and archaea, and acetogens, bacteria. They live between carbon dioxide and the hydrogen
gas. They get all they need from that reaction
alone. They need nitrogens and all that, but with
growth and the energy and carbon comes from this reaction. It is called a free lunch that you are paid
to eat. But one thing I want to bring your attention
to here: it is not easy to get hydrogen and CO2 to react, if we could do that we could
solve global warming, because we could strip CO2 out of the atmosphere. And we could solve the energy security because
we can produce synthetic gasoline. So there must be lots of people in secret
labs around the world figuring out how this goes on and they won't publish it, so I don't
know. I have to bring my own ideas to the problem. And I'm a biologist and I see what these cells
are doing. Over the last 20 years or so we now have a
much better idea of what these cells are doing. One thing that they need is a proton gradient
across a membrane and they can't grow without that. If you look at roughly what's going on – don't
be intimidated by this – this is an energy map, if you like, if it goes uphill you have
to put energy in as a barrier, this doesn't want to happen spontaneously. If it is going downhill it will happen spontaneously. You start with CO2 and react it with hydrogen,
the first couple of steps to get to this, this is formaldehyde, it is uphill, you have
to put a lot of energy in to get it to react. That is why it is not easy to do or economically
feasible to make synthetic gasoline from CO2 and hydrogen. What do the methanogens do? They reduce the barrier to make?? it happen,
and then it happens very quickly, they get all the energy from lowering the barrier with
the proton gradient. That points to me to a particular environment
on earth where life might have got going. These are alkaline hydrothermal vents, they
were discovered in the year 2000, relatively recently by Deborah Kelley who was the captain
of the submersible. They were discovered by a PhD student who
was on the trip as well. These are about 15-20kms off the axis of the
mid-Atlantic ridge. So there is nothing interesting there. Everybody knows that, so they were just getting
on writing their emails or whatever they were doing and the PhD student was the only one
who was looking out of the window and said hey, wow, what's that! It turned out to be an entirely novel hydrothermal
system. Nobody had seen anything quite like this before. People predicted it might exist and nobody
had seen anything like it. It is not a black smoker, you don't see the
black smoke welling out of these things. It was called Lost City in part, it was on
the Atlantis area and it was linked to it. It looks almost abandoned and there is a strange
empty feel to the vent system. This really is again another theme of science. This is a serendipitous discovery, it is really
exploration, and I can't overemphasise the importance of just exploration in science. Finding out things about the world; looking
at what there is to see. So these vents I mentioned had been predicted,
they had been predicted by this guy, Mike Russell, about ten years earlier. His ideas at the time were really considered
a little bit leftfield probably for most people, in some respects they still are. But the discovery of this vent system which
conformed so closely to the kind of properties that he said they should have really made
him famous overnight. This was an article by Nature, the leading
science magazine. They dressed him up as Erasmus and called
him Nascence Man and linked him to the Renaissance and dressed him up as Erasmus. I have noticed how sartorial standards have
dropped. I'm trying to stop the rot and I don't wear
a tie often. What Mike Russell argued is that these vents,
if you look inside them, there isn't a central chimney, you just have this kind of porous
rock, it is like a sponge, a mineralised sponge, and the hydrothermal fluids percolate through
the sponge. You have high amounts of hydrogen and carbon
dioxide, and the proton gradient, the oceans four million years ago were acid and this
is very alkaline, today they are mildly alkaline but far less than the fluids. He said this is very equivalent to cells as
we know them. This is what they look like if you go down
to the level of inside one, so this is perhaps a few micrometres across, much less than a
millimetre. We have a relatively thick barrier separating
the ocean waters and I'm thinking here deep inside the vent. The ocean and hydrothermal fluids come in. On one side it is acidic and the other side
alkaline. This is roughly what cells look like, so cells
are pumping protons out all the time. On the outside they are relatively acidic
and inside relatively alkaline. The difference across the barrier is three
PH units, give or take in both cases, and in both cases it is acid on the outside. It is very analogous, it is inspiringly so,
but there is no reason at all to think it should be any more an analogous. The question is could it be, is there an experiment
to do to test if it may work? There are simple experiments we have started
doing in the lab and we can produce these hydrothermal structures, containing the minerals
and the question is can we use the structure and the difference in ph. across the barrier
to drive the formation of organic matter? It is very early days but I will show you
this. This is formaldehyde, and it has different
energy levels. It does look as if that structure might promote
this reaction between hydrogen and CO2. What I want to draw your attention to about
the vents is they are formed by a chemical reaction between rocks, the kind of rocks
that you find in the oceanic crust, magnesium and water, it will percolate down into the
crust to departments of five or six kilometres. This is the ocean above and they react with
the rock and it becomes changed and it is converted from olivine into pentonite. We have warm fluids bubbling back up, and
when they are in contact with the ocean waters they can precipitate these amazing vent systems,
up to 60ms tall. The only requirements are rock and water. So you would expect to see these kinds of
vents on any wet rocky planet. There is even some evidence from our own Solar
System, so this is Enceladus, and on Enceladus you see these geisers periodically, and from
the ions dissolved in those you can work out the Ph, and that seems to be 11, there are
few processes that will give a Ph to oceans of 11. On Mars there are perhaps traces of methane,
and it is either coming from life, which is difficult to believe, or coming from this
geological process, reacting, traces of water down in the rocks with the rocks themselves. And of course Europa is another place to look
and again it has massive oceans and there are some signs that some reaction is going
on. The real key point from all of this first
half of the talk is that wet rocky planets will form this type of vent, bubbling with
hydrogen gas, it should happen on potentially tens of billions of exo-planets across the
Milky Way alone. They should have natural proton gradient,
and those natural proton gradients should drive this difficult reaction between hydrogen
and CO2, and it begins to make sense for this broad shape, why is it the simplest cells
are using proton gradient, and why did it spread to everything else? This is a way of seeing it that makes some
kind of sense and again it might not be true but at least we can try to test it. If it is true then life elsewhere should face
rather similar constraints. We can get at this question, why was it that
the bacteria have been flatlining for four billion years? Why did life get stuck in a rut and would
it be the same reason elsewhere, and would it be the same requirement for proton gradient? It is what I like to think that John Maynard
Smith would have called an evolutionary scandal! John Maynard Smith was a great evolutionary
biologist, one of the doyennes of evolutionary biology of the 21st century and at UCL as
I am and I'm proud of that. He worked largely on the evolution of sex
which was very much an evolutionary scandal, but I think he saw this problem in similar
terms as well. The problem is that all complex life is composed
of this one cell type, the eukaryotic cell, which arose only once in the entire four billion
years of evolution. Maybe they arose at other times but we have
not seen any other sign of them. Nobody has ever found one. So to the best that we know they arose once. And all eukaryotic share kinds of traits,
we are all sexual, for example. And bacteria don't seem to evolve any of those
traits at the morphological way in the same way. The scandal is if all the traits form step
by step by standard natural selection and each small step offers an advantage in the
conventional way, why don't we see any of them arising in bacteria for similar reasons? It is not obvious. I'm not criticising natural selection at all. The question is what are the constraints that
are operating on natural selection and is energy one of them? Just to give you a sense of the problem here:
eyes, for example, they are often dismissed by creationists as being what use is half
an eye, and you have the feeling that natural selection is laughing at them because these
are all different types of eye. This, for example, this is an eyeless shrimp. It doesn't have eyes at all but these photosensitive
strips on its back. This is a pond scrum, it is a single-cell
algae, this is an eye spot. This is another remarkable single-cell protist
and this is the retina here, all inside the single cell, it is made of chloroplast, usually
used from photosynthesis and it has cobbled together this now. And the powerhouses are used as part of the
cornea for this eye. There are all different types of eye. This is scallops, astonishing things. In animals they can trace a common ancestor
which is a light-sensitive spot on some kind of an early worm. And there are some regulatory genes in common,
but those regulatory genes independently recruited all the re- of the genes to evolve a complex
morphological eye independently. So the eye of an octopus here is very similar
to our own eye in its overall structure but it is completely originally evolved. It doesn't share a common ancestor. This is convergent evolution. So what was going on then? Down here. Why was it that all of these bacteria in archaea
in all the billions of years in all the variation, why couldn't they come up with something like
half an eye or half of a nucleus or phage cytosis and all the complex things that cells
do and they don't do? What was happening down here that wasn't happening
over there? I like to think of this as the black hole
at the heart of biology. It is not just at the level of multi-cellular
organisms, it is also the cells themselves. This is planctomycete, a relatively complex
bacterium; it has a structure you might be able to make out. It is compartmentalised, called a little bit
like a nucleus, not that similar but it has a relatively complex structure. It is roughly to scale which is why you can't
see it very well, this is the pond scum I mentioned a moment ago. You don't need to know what any of this is
to realise it is on a completely different scale to the bacteria with a lot going on,
this is the chloroplasts and the nucleus, we don't need to know that to appreciate there
is a big void in complexity even at the level of single cells. What was going on? The other thing I want to call your attention
to is within the eukaryotes themselves, the level of complexity is strikingly similar
in different types of cell. This is paramecium and this is a par Cretic
acinar cell, they look similar, and I ask my students in the first year when they start
how many genes do they think cells does paramecium have, they range from ten to a few thousand,
the actual answer is 40,000, that is twice as many as we have. So the level of complexity in terms of protein-coding
genes in single-celled pond scrum is quite striking. I'm making fun of the students but I should
make fun of the professors as well! When the human genome project was just coming
to fruition in around about 1999, there was a sweepstake to try to guess the number of
genes that there would be. The average number that people guessed was
80-100,000. And of course now we know the answer was 20,000. And I have to say on behalf of evolutionary
biologists that the evolutionary biologists in the late 1960s-70s on the basis of mutation
rates had demonstrated that the human genome could not have more than 30,000 genes. Unfortunately, the scientists who were working
on unravelling the genome itself didn't know that literature. That is another point about science, it is
very difficult to keep abreast of the very wide literature and have an idea if you are
in one field of what people have been doing in another field. It is very, very difficult to do that. Another thing we all have in common, all eukaryotic
are sexual, sexual in the sense that cells fuse together and the nucleus fuses together
and we don't see that at all in bacteria. There are quite a few eukaryotic cells that
appeared not to be sexual. This is amoeba, for example, and until 2011,
so this is Dan Lahr here, I imagine he's out looking for amoeba in the woods! But we knew they had some genes that were
linked with sex but they had never been caught in flagrante, and Dan finally caught them. This is amoeba having sex! I must say I was a bit disappointed! I don't know quite what I imagined I thought
they would be bristling and exciting amoeba but it isn't how it looks! The key point I have to get to the argument
here is that all eukaryotic cells had or have mitochondria. So this link with energy can explain why it
is that all complex cells only arose once. So all of these cells do not have mitochondria,
they lost them. And it is another illustration of science,
it was a very good hypothesis from 30 years ago saying perhaps these were primitive and
they never had them. Testing that hypothesis shows it was wrong. The importance of being wrong in science is
vital as well because we know an awful lot more about these cells. It turned out that they did have mitochondria
once upon a time. Lynn Margulis showed really in 1957, 50 years
ago this year, that mitochondria derived from bacteria. This is Lynn Margulis. She married Carl Sagan, it is an anti-celebrity
marriage, I'm sure everyone knows Carl Sagan, but Lynn Margulis was a celebrated evolutionary
biologists, celebrated and worried about because some of her ideas, the ideas to do with mitochondria
and chloroplasts being derived by bacteria were true, other of her ideas turned out not
to be true. Another theme from science is she persisted
with the ideas and the ones that were true after 20 or 30 years everybody accepted them
to be true, but it required a real dedication on the part of an individual who is being
tormented. There were papers published dismissing what
she was saying, but it turns out she was right about a lot of important factors. She was asked during the end of her life,
“Don't you get tired of being called controversial all the time?”She responded to say, “I'm
not controversial, I'm just right!” So this was the derivation of the host cell. Less than a month ago we now know the host
cell was an archaea. Related to the lokiarchaeota. Near Loki's castle. A year ago there was a paper showing the host
cell was closely related to the lokiarchaeota, which were dredged up from down there. We have never seen the cells, we have a genome
sequence; this is environmental meta-genome reconstruction. More systematically across the world, a couple
of weeks ago they have come across? one another paper saying this is a super thing with different
groups. The lokiarchaeota are here, we have the thorarchaeota
and the thing is going there. This is how the tree of life now looks. This comes from a friend of mine, Bill Martin,
one of the most brilliant scientists of his generation and not always appreciated because
he can be a bit prickly. This was his conception in 1998 that we have
separate origins from a vent, from a hydrothermal vent, the system I have been talking about,
independent origins from a common ancestor from that vent of the bacteria and the archaea,
and the eukaryotic are a single event, an endosymbiosis. It started something like this is the only
example we know of bacteria living inside a bacterial cell. The key point about it is, the reason it matters
is that you have a population of cells in there and when you have population of cells
what bacteria do, if they are just growing, you can imagine this is a population of bacteria
and this yellow cell here loses, it has a mutation, it is wiped out a gene that it doesn't
need any more. It has a slightly smaller genome and it grows
slightly faster. Over time it comes to dominate. By here, pretty much all the cells in that
population have lost that gene because they don't need it right now. But then the conditions change and they do
need it again and they pick it up, from somewhere in the environment by a process called lateral
gene transfer and before you know it you are back where you were. What happens here if you have the same population
of bacteria inside a cell they lose that gene and they never need it again. So they just waste away, getting smaller and
smaller; it is a genomic streamlining going on. We know plenty of examples of this type of
thing going on. Typhus is an example of it. This is Napoleon's retreat from Moscow where
the army was almost obliterated by typhus. It is caused by a bacterium, an intracellular
bacterium, this is Rickettsia, inviting a cell here the key thing about Rickettsia is
it has a tiny genome a fifth of the size of most bacterial genomes, it is one in size. This is the free living bacteria coming across
here 12 now megabases and here are the intracellular ones, the parasites and the symbionts, one
megabase, most of the work is done by Ryan Gregory, you see a striking difference if
you are living inside another cell you throw away everything you don't need and you become
small and dedicated to a particular way of life. And that's what happened to the mitochondria,
the mitochondria started out as bacteria and they ended up with a genome of their own. Very, very tiny genome, 99% of their genes
have gone. It is a really interesting question, why did
they retain that 1%? And the answer, it comes from John Allen here
in the audience, and this is another wonderful idea that John put forward first in 1995 and
it is still not generally accepted though it should be! I don't have time to go into details but effectively
all of these mitochondria here have their own genes which they use for controlling respiration
locally. So the membrane potential on these, the actual
electrical charge across those is about 150mili volts, if you were to shrink yourself down
to the size of a molecule that would be equivalent to being a field strength of 30 million volts
per metre which is equivalent a bolt of lightning. The charge on the membranes enormous, they
need that to deal with that charge. Just for the last couple of minutes. What is actually going on? This is the situation. If we see giant bacteria, they have thousands
upon thousands of copies of their complete genome. So it is a thing called explosive polyploid. They need it to control respiratory, in the
same way that eukaryotic do. This is a eukaryotic, in red, the mitochondria
and the green dots are the mitochondrial DNA, they have the tiny genomes supporting the
big genome. We have a symmetry where all the genomes are
the same size and shape in bacteria, they expand up and copy and copy and copy and there
is no evolution going on they all remain the same. But here over time these genomes will become
tiny and they can support then energetically that massive nuclear genome. Why did complex life only arise once? It required at the very beginning a singular
endosymbiosis it is rare we only know one example. There are no known surviving intermediates
of this process, they have to find a way of syncing up their lifestyles. There was that quote about hell being other
people and this is what is going on here. This is the equivalent to the common ancestor,
this is the black hole at the heart of biology and it is difficult to get at how it happened. Another important take-home message is when
we are trying to understand what is going wrong in diseases and things, it is important
to know how all the parts of a cell relate to each other, how do they work, how do they
function, how do they evolve to be that way? If we can't understand that, it is difficult
to understand how they go wrong. At the moment we don't really have a good
idea of exactly how they all evolved in the first place. As I said earlier we have ideas but we don't
know which is the right answer. So I have said that life arose only once,
complex life and it was very rare. And that may depress some of you. And so I want to give you a hope and cut you
a little slack. This was discovered in 2011 and it is not
clear at all what it is, which is another lovely thing about science. We don't know what it is. The lokiarchaeota, we have a genome but we
don't know what the cell looks like, so we try to piece it together from the genes. In this case we know what the cell looks like,
it is this, but we don't have a genome so we don't really know what it is. Now this is not a normal cell. It has got what looks like a nucleus here,
quite large, it has some things that look a bit like hydrogenosomes but they could be
bacteria. It has membrane and cell wall. It looks like a fungus of some sort, but when
you look more closely you realise that the nuclear membrane, it is a single membrane,
it should be a double membrane, it is a single membrane, that is odd. All of this dappling here, these are ribosomes
but outside the nucleus which is weird, this is fusing the membrane there are a lot of
things wrong with the cell. It might be all part of the preparation, we
don't know. It might be that it is somehow recapitulating,
that we have the cells within the cell and it has become larger, these are normal-sized
bacteria here, it is becoming large and developing a nucleus, it is recapitulating eukaryotic
evolution, the downside is they have been trawling it trench off the coast of Japan
for the last 15 years and only found one like that and they have never found another one. So it is very rare and perhaps complex life
has arisen on multiple occasions but went extinct before it got very far. I want to finish with this. I'm sure some of you will recognise this as
the pale blue dot which is there, that is the earth and this was vow Voyager 1 in 1990
when it was beginning to leave the Solar System and Karl Sagan managed to persuade them to
turn around and take a picture of the earth. Bands are light-scattering artefacts and not
true at all. And Karl with his characteristic eloquence
said that everything which we know about, everybody we have ever loved, and everybody
we have cared for, everybody who ever lived, all the civilisations and the empires and
the tyrants and the religions and everything that's happened on this planet from the very
beginning happened on that pale blue dot. The thing that strikes me about it as well
though is how inscrutable it is. How could we know anything really about that? And science itself, well the word is inscrutable,
it is almost impossible to know anything about all of this and yet we do. We know about the rules and atoms and quarks
and membranes and strings, and we know the other side about black holes and we know about
the structure themselves and the proteins that make them up and how they work, this
is from the process of science over hundreds of years, finding ways of asking probing questions,
it works a little bit like natural selection in the sense that there are always competing
hypothesis and ways of seeing a question, it is the testing of those questions just
as natural selection distinguishes between different versions, some of which work better
than others. In science there is a ratchet like way of
improving our knowledge over time and beginning to get at some answers. A lot of science is now in dusty textbooks
because it was established a long time ago. Where science is really at in the process
of discovery and trying to understand new things about the world. That process is inevitably about competing
hypothesis and arguments and different ways of seeing the world, that is how it needs
to be but it is also a dangerous way of presentation I think in the modern world where experts
with are dismissed as being meaningless. We have to find a way as society of somehow
getting people to think more clearly about what science is as a way of thinking about
the world and questioning the world and getting at inscrutable information. This is one of the reasons why I think books
are valuable, why any form of public engagement is valuable. It is vital, I think, if we want to keep the
whole western way of life alive, which is based on this scientific understanding of
the world, we have to find a way of making, of getting everybody to appreciate the process
that is going on and when they see two scientists arranging with each other they will appreciate
that they are arranging about details and they are arranging about how to move forward,
they are not arranging necessarily about what we know from the past. I think that is a key message to end with. Thank you all very much. [Applause]. NICK: I have overrun slightly I hope we have
time for questions. ADRIAN: Nick has agreed to take ten minutes
or so of questions. Could I ask you please to use the microphones
if you want to ask a question. And if you can please stand up. So who wants to ask a question? We have one down here on the left? FLOOR: Thank you very much. I just wondered about the chloroplast. I always understood that chloroplasts were
another endosymbiont, an extra one. Can you clarify that? NICK: Yes they are, it was not a singular
event that gave rise to complexity. The acquisition of mitochondria gave rise
to all eukaryotic cells, every one of them, and then in one group later on they acquired
a Sino-bacteria that went on to become a chloroplast, it didn't affect the entire direction, it
affected everything in the sense that it a0 load photosynthesis to take off in a different
way and changed the way the world went, but in a conceptual sense it doesn't alter the
pact, it was a singular endosymbiosis at the beginning. FLOOR: I wanted to ask if you were aware of
anybody mixing together archaea and bacteria under a variety of conditions to see if you
can observe a bacterium getting into an archaea? Has anyone attempted that or is it regarded
as so improbable? NICK: I would love to try do it. It is not an easy experiment to get funding
for and you can't inject one inside the other. You could do that but it would fail because
you need to have a way of making a living inside another cell and the ideas are that
there would be lots of gene transfers going on and you would need to set that up in the
lab. I have met several people who have told me
that they are doing exactly that and the strange thing is I have never seen any of them since! FLOOR: Is it fair to conclude that because
it took so long for eukaryotic cells to derive that if there is more life in the universe
it is more pro-eukaryotic and we don't need to worry about ET! FLOOR: I was wondering if some cells have
developed in a way that they don't need mitochondria anymore? Is it possible for cells to evolve in a way
that they take the shortcut from the beginning? NICK: I would say no, it is not possible. And that's a hypothesis that may turn out
to be someone (somehow?) wrong if someone shows a complex cell tomorrow that never had
mitochondria. We know of a lot of cells that don't have
mitochondria, it is perfectly possible to be complex and not have mitochondria. The question is really is it possible to become
complex in the first place without having mitochondria. And the energy difference of having mitochondria
makes is (it?) actually immense. I didn't really mention this, it is about
100,000-fold against in the energy availability in the gene that eukaryotic cells have above
bacteria. It allows you to just ramp up on a massive
scale and have more for photosynthesis to have more genes and bad genes. It doesn't affect you very much because you
have bucketloads of energy sloshes around and you can deal with it. Once you have got all of that, and most of
these cells who have lost their mitochondria are phagocyte, once you are that can you go
around and engulf other cells, which means you may not get much energy out of eating
them but can you eat more of them and you will be all right. Whereas if you tried to do that as a bacterium,
there are no bacterial phagocyte. The whole process is so costly, that is the
barrier. The bacterial cells that just ferment, they
exist as well and are tiny. They can't extract hardly anything, they can't
eat other cells they have to use the resources of the environment. They have the smallest genomes of any known
bacterial cells. ADRIAN: One last question here in the middle. FLOOR: Life has been around for four billion
years, but eukaryotic cells only around about two billion years. Fusion event took place not long after the
great oxidation event, therefore once you had oxygen in the atmosphere that sort of
fusion essential is possibly more likely? NICK: That is what Lynn Margulis' original
thought. FLOOR: It could be a little more likely from
what you are saying? NICK: That sounds reasonable on the face of
it. The problem with it is we don't see multiple,
that is what you would expect to see, once you have oxygen you would expect to see for
example cyano bacteria might evolve into the plants, and they are preadaptive to that lifestyle,
why not go on and pick up another cell if they need one if it is easier to do with oxygen. Why not fungi, why are they not derived from
bacteria a similar lifestyle? Why don't animals arise from phagocytic bacteria
or predatory bacteria? What that theory pro-directs multiple origins
like a bottleneck, we should see multiple origins, not tens or hundreds but two, three
or four of separate origins of complex life, but that is not what we do see. It is not at all clear when the eukaryotic
arose or whether it was linked to the period after the oxidation event. Also, over the last ten years, we see oxidation
then but not much oxygen. Most of that gets consumed by oxidising the
rocks themselves and that is why we see the red beds and so on. But in the oceans there is very little oxygen
for another billion years, really until the time of the Cumbrian explosion and we see
animals abruptly, and that was probably linked to oxygen. ADRIAN: I think we better stop the questions
there. We now come to the formal presentation. So Nick it is my pleasure to present to you
the scroll. And also the medal. And finally the cheque! [Applause] Wonderful congratulations. [Applause]
So, ladies and gentlemen, a right of (kind of?) function is due to take place in this
lecture hall shortly. In order for our staff to prepare the hall,
we would be very grateful if you could make your way to the exit as quickly as possible. Unfortunately Dr Lane will not be able to
remain to answer any further questions. Guests attending the private function should
make their way to the City of London II room which will be on your left as you exit there. Thank you very much for coming. I hope you have enjoyed the evening. Thank you.

A better description of entropy



Views:667538|Rating:4.89|View Time:11:43Minutes|Likes:23966|Dislikes:561
I use this stirling engine to explain entropy. Entropy is normally described as a measure of disorder but I don’t think that’s helpful. Here’s a better description.

Visit my blog here:
Follow me on twitter here:
Buy nerdy maths things here:

I thought I'd film this video on a train it's a weird train though it hasn't moved for an hour also outside the window it's just another window also this side it's just Ken it's no train on that side it's just train on this side anyway this video is about entropy and you've probably heard of entropy maybe you think of entropy as a measure of disorder and you know that entropy is always increasing so the disorder in the universe is always going up this is like the popular one-line definition of entropy that it's a measure of disorder I'm not a big fan of it I think it's kind of confusing and it doesn't help with your understanding of what entropy really is I know it's a popular definition because it's like you know the reason my room is always messy is because I'm constantly battling the universe's desire to increase in disorder but there is a better definition than that this definition goes back to why entropy was invented in the first place and it's to do with how engines work and making engines more efficient so you know how an engine works you put fuel in you burn the fuel that creates heat and then somehow this heat is turned into the movement of your engine and that description is okay but it's a lot more interesting than that to illustrate the point I've brought an engine with me this is a very special type of engine that you don't put fuel in yeah that's right free energy people it's real the big energy companies are lice not a snot so this is an example of an external combustion engine as opposed to an internal combustion engine it's a Stirling engine and you don't put fuel in instead you burn your fuel on the outside and this is such a finely engineered Stirling engine that it will run just off the heat of my hand okay so that bottom plate now has had a bit of a chance to warm up it's now about the same temperature as my hand so I just need to give this flywheel a little kick start it should just keep going on its own it's a little engine that goes if I get it to the same level as my face and I'm both being focused to really get this thing going you want to use something like a hot drink or a hand warmer looks like a little hot water bowl silly doesn't make any sense it's not even a let me explain how a Stirling engine works there are two plates here the bottom one is hot because I'm heating it with and wa-wa the top one is just at room temperature and inside there's a block of foam so if I move the block of foam to the top then the air inside the chamber is in contact with the hot plate in the bottom so the air is warming up when you heat up the air inside it expands and that expanding air pushes this piston here so that pushes upwards which turns the wheel when you turn the wheel that's connected to the phone block so the phone block is now at the bottom and when the phone book is at the bottom and the air is in contact with the top plate meaning the air cools down meaning it contracts meaning it pulls that piston back down that turns the wheel some more that pulls the phone back up to the top so now the air is in contact with the bottom plate so it's expanding because it's getting hot which is pushing the piston which is telling the wheel which is pushing the foam down and so on and so on and so on so that is how a Stirling engine works but the point is it's not heat that you need it's a difference in temperature so in this case there needs to be a difference in temperature between these two plates in fact you can run this Stirling engine on ice so if you have the bottom plate colder than the top plate you can make it work though there is no ice available on this train so I'm just going to reiterate that it's not heat that you need to run an engine it's a difference in temperature like if both of these plates were really really hot but the same temperature it wouldn't run so what's this got to do with entropy well imagine you had two slabs of metal and one was hot one was cold you touch them together what do you expect to happen you expect heat to flow from the hot slab to the cold slab until the heat is evenly distributed between the two slabs and once the heat energy is evenly distributed that's the end nothing else happens you never see it in Reverse if you have two slabs that are at the same temperature with evenly distributed heat you don't spontaneously see one of the slabs stealing heat energy from the other until as a difference in temperature so what if I put my Stirling engine between these two stabs well heat would transfer between the slabs through the Stirling engine causing the engine to turn but once the energy is distributed evenly between the two slabs then the engine will stop turning because the two plates of the engine are now at the same temperature and this is the really important bit energy is only useful when it's clumped together and when you use that energy you're spreading it out and once it's spread out you can't use it anymore it was during the industrial revolution that people became really interested in engines and how to make them more efficient and it was here that the concept of entropy was born it helped these early engineers to make their engines better so my preferred one-line definition of entropy is that it's a measure of how spread out your energy is and we've already heard that entropy always increases so that means that energy is always spreading out it's going from clumped up stayed to a spread out state and just as a side note you can clump energy together locally but it's always at the expense of energy spreading out somewhere else for example this is actually a reversible heat engine so if I manually turn this wheel I can cause one plate to get hot while the other gets cold so I'm clumping the energy together on one side but to run this wheel I'm using my muscles and my muscles are putting heat out into the universe and entropy is increasing that way so the overall effect is that entropy is increased even though I'm creating a local decrease in entropy so energy is always becoming more spread out and less clumped together what that means is in the future eventually all the energy will be evenly spread out and none of our engines will run including our bodies which are a kind of engine they'll stop running but it's not all bad news for us humans fortunately on earth there are loads of sources of clumped together energy that we haven't used yet clump together energy that hasn't spread out things like coal oil and gas when we burn those fuels we're running our engines and we're spreading the energy out so once we've burnt them that's it we can't use them anymore the energy is spread out so they will run out their non-renewable sources of energy fortunately there is still one giant source of clumped together energy that we can use and that's the Sun so once the fossil fuels have run out we can power our engines using things like solar panels we can grow crops and make biofuels and things like that by the way I'm not endorsing using up all the fossil fuels on earth because there are some terrible side effects from doing that for example pumping co2 into the atmosphere so we should really be switching to that massive clump of energy the Sun sooner rather than later of course all the energy in the Sun will eventually spread out as well as will all the energy in the universe and once all the energy in the universe is evenly spread out nothing interesting can ever happen again do we need to worry about this well this is called the heat death of the universe and it's Sciences best guess at how the universe will end but it won't happen for another 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years so why doesn't she always increase well it's actually a statistical phenomenon imagine you had a cardboard box and you have a layer of ping-pong balls at the bottom half of them are red half of them are blue and you painstakingly arrange them so all the red ping pong balls are on one side all the blue ping pong balls are on the other side now vigorously shake that box all those ping pong balls are going to fly around then let them settle again into a single day and you'll notice that the red ping pong balls and blue ping pong balls are randomly distributed throughout the layer you won't find that you have you know all the red ping pong balls on one side and all the blue ping pong balls on the other side and you probably just have an intuitive understanding of why that seems obvious but just to give it some statistical rigor there is only one way to have all the ping-pong balls that are red on one side little ping-pong balls little blue on the other side but there are so many other possible arrangements millions billions trillions of possible I mean gazillions of possible arrangements depending on how many pink bubbles you've got of having them in that in that layer so there's only one out of trillions that is that kind of clumped together state so clumped together is statistically unlikely and when you scale that up to you know a box of atoms where you've got hot ones on one side and cold ones on the other and they're all whizzing round just by chance they could always over to one half of the box leaving the cold ones on the other side but it's so unlikely that we never ever see it happen and what's interesting is that you can look at time itself the passage of time the direction of time the arrow of time in terms of entropy you can define a direction for time in terms of the spreading out of energy in terms of the increase in entropy so there's an argument that time itself is a statistical phenomenon the Stirling engine is made by contacts you can get it from Stirling engine Co UK they ship worldwide they've not sponsored the video or anything like that I just think it's a wonderful engine they sell other engines as well so check out Stirling engine co uk so there you go my preferred definition of entropy I hope you enjoyed this video if you did then hit subscribe unless you're already subscribed in which case I'm not sure what happens when you press that button I don't gets there maybe there's only an unsubscribe button don't hit that that would be just it disaster personally master for me terrible for you as well I mean you would you might miss a video anyway I will see you next time

Entropy: Embrace the Chaos! Crash Course Chemistry #20



Views:1221190|Rating:4.88|View Time:13:41Minutes|Likes:14481|Dislikes:343
Life is chaos and the universe tends toward disorder. But why? If you think about it, there are only a few ways for things to be arranged in an organized manner, but there are nearly infinite other ways for those same things to be arranged. Simple rules of probability dictate that it’s much more likely for stuff to be in one of the many disorganized states than in one of the few organized states. This tendency is so unavoidable that it’s known as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Obviously, disorder is a pretty big deal in the universe and that makes it a pretty big deal in chemistry – it’s such a big deal that scientists have a special name for it: entropy. In chemistry, entropy is the measure of molecular randomness, or disorder. For the next thirteen minutes, Hank hopes you will embrace the chaos as he teaches you about entropy.


Table of Contents
Second Law of Thermodynamics :45
Entropy 2:01
DEMONSTRATION! 4:28
BA(OH)2•8H2O+NH4Ci 10:25
J.W. Gibbs & Gibbs Free Energy 7:23


Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook –
Twitter –
Tumblr – Support CrashCourse on Subbable:

الحياة فوضى. بل الكون بأكمله عبارة عن فوضى. سواء أكنت أتحدث عن حالة مكتبي المزرية أم تفسّخ جسمي البطيء إلى غبار، فإن الكون ينزع إلى انعدام النظام. ولكن لماذا؟ لِمَ الكون مبني بهذه الطريقة الفظيعة والقاسية؟ في الواقع، اتضح إن اللوم
لا يقع على عاتق الكون. إذا ما فكرتم في الأمر فإن هناك طريقة واحدة،
أو بضعة طرق في أفضل الأحوال، لتنسيق الأشياء بطريقة منظمة. ولكن هناك طرق أخرى لا حصر لها لتنسيق تلك الأشياء ذاتها. تقتضي قوانين الاحتمالات إن الاحتمال الأكبر هو أن الأشياء، سواء أكانت الأشياء التي على مكتبي أم الجسيمات والطاقة التي تتألف منها نفسي، ستستقر في إحدى الحالات غير المنتظمة العديدة بدلًا من إحدى حالات الانتظام القليلة. الأمر لا مناص منه. بل إنه محتوم للغاية درجة إنه القانون الثاني
من قوانين الديناميكا الحرارية، والذي ينص على أن أي عملية عفوية
تزيد من عدم انتظام أو عشوائية الكون. وتلك العمليات التي لا تزيد عدم انتظام الكون تتطلب بذل شغل لمواجهة عدم الانتظام، وهي في الواقع
مستحيلة التحقيق في كثير من الأحيان. إن مجرد ترتيب نظام يتطلب أن تصبح أنظمة أخرى غير منظمة. فكر في الأمر بهذه الطريقة: كان طعام غدائك مكونًا
من مجموعة جزيئات مرتبة للغاية، وقد منحك الطاقة لتنظيف منزلك، وكان يجب تفكيكه إلى عناصر غذائية
أقل تنظيمًا حتى تستطيع فعل ذلك. كربوهيدرات وبروتينات ودهون، وتلك الجزيئات تم تفكيكها أكثر بعد لتحويلها إلى طاقة في خلاياك، ومن ثم استخدم جسمك بعض تلك الطاقة لتشغيل عضلاتك وأنت تنظف بيتك. ولكن الكثير من تلك الطاقة استُخدم للقيام بأمور
مثل الحرص على مواصلة خفقان قلبك والتنفس وإفراز العرق، وبعضها فُقد في البيئة المحيطة، على هيئة حركات عشوائية،
والأهم من ذلك، على هيئة حرارة. عندما انتهيت كان منزلك قد أصبح مرتبًا، ولكن بقايا جزيئات طعام غدائك
باتت متناثرة في كل مكان. وهذا فقط واحد من الأنظمة العديدة
التي أصبحت أقل انتظامًا أثناء عملك. لذا، أجل، ترتيب المنزل
زاد انعدام الانتظام الكلّي في الكون. في المرة القادمة التي يؤنبك بها أحد بسبب
حالة منزلك الرثّة، يمكنك إخبارهم بذلك. كما هو واضح،
فإن عدم الانتظام هو أمر مهم في الكون، وذلك يجعله أمرًا مهمًا في الكيمياء. لذا فإن العلماء أطلقوا عليه اسمًا خاصًا،
ألا وهو الإنتروبيا. الإنتروبيا هي مقياس
لعشوائية أو عدم انتظام الجزيئات، ومع أن الناس يتذمرون
من عدم الانتظام في حياتهم، إلا أن عدم الانتظام ليس سيئًا بشكل عام. الإنتروبيا تساعد
على جعل التفاعلات الكيميائية ممكنة، وتساعدنا على التنبؤ بمقدار الشغل المفيد
الذي بالإمكان استخلاصه من تفاعل ما. كلنا مضطرون إلى العيش مع عدم الانتظام،
لذا، حريّ بنا أن نفهمه. في الدقائق العشر التالية،
أريد منكم أن تتقبلوا الفوضى بصدر رحب. ماذا يعني قانون الديناميكا الحرارية الثاني بقوله إن أي عملية عفويّة
تزيد من عدم انتظام الكون. كلمة "عفوية" تعني عملية
لا تحتاج إلى طاقة خارجية للاستمرار. والعكس صحيح أيضًا، فأي شيء
يزيد من عدم انتظام الكون يحدث عفويًا، ولكن هذا لا يعني أن عدم الانتظام سيحدث دومًا، فقد تتدخل عوامل أخرى. مثلًا، التفاعل المطلوب
لتحويل الماس إلى غرافيت، هو عفويّ من الناحية الديناميكية الحرارية، فلا حاجة إلى حثّه بواسطة طاقة خارجية، ولكن روابط ذرات الماس مستقرة للغاية
درجة أن ذلك التفاعل لا يبدأ أبدًا. العديد من التفاعلات الكيميائية الأخرى
شبيهة بهذا أيضًا. لذا، مع أننا أحيانًا نفسّر كلمة "عفوي"
على أنها تعني "مفاجئ" أو "مندفع"، مثل غالبية حالات ثقب الشفتين لوضع الأقراط، إلا أن كلمة "عفوي" في الكيمياء
لا تنبئنا بمدى سرعة حدوث الشيء، وإنما تعني فقط أن التفاعل قادر
من الناحية الديناميكية الحرارية على الحدوث من دون أن تحثّه طاقة خارجية. وإن كنت أظن أن ثقب الشفتين العفويّ
يسبب قدرًا لا بأس به من الاضطراب أيضًا، وخاصة عند الوصول إلى البيت. الإنتروبيا هي دالة حالة أخرى، فهو لا يعتمد على المسار
الذي اتخذه النظام للوصول إلى حالته الحالية. لذا، مع أننا لا نستطيع قياس
إنتروبيا المواد المتفاعلة أو النواتج مباشرة، إلا أن بإمكاننا حسابها. يمكننا أيضًا حساب
التغير في الإنتروبيا الحاصل أثناء تفاعل ما، تمامًا كما نحسب التغير في المحتوى الحراري: عبر طرح مجموع قيم المواد المتفاعلة
من مجموع قيم النواتج. بمعنى آخر، فإن المعادلتين متشابهتان تمامًا، وما علينا إلا استبدال S،
والتي لسبب ما ترمز إلى الإنتروبيا، بدلتا Hf. لاحظوا أننا أسقطنا علامتي دلتا
من الجانب الأيمن من المعادلة لأننا نعرف القيم المطلقة
لإنتروبيا كل مادة متفاعلة ومادة ناتجة. ونُبقي الدلتا في الجانب الأيسر
لأننا نحسب التغير في الأنتروبيا الذي يحصل عندما يعاد ترتيب
المواد المتفاعلة لتصبح مواد ناتجة. ما فائدة ذلك؟ حسنًا، يمكننا ذلك من تفسير أمر غامض، ألا وهو كيفية
حدوث التفاعلات بشكل عفوي في الطبيعة مع أنه لا توجد طاقة منبعثة، أو حتى أنها تمتص الطاقة من البيئة ويبدو
أنها ترتقي على سلم الطاقة بدلًا من الهبوط. دعونا نجرب هذا على تفاعل حقيقي
هنا على مكتبي. وهذا أحد التفاعلات المفضلة لدي. هذا هيدروكسيد الباريوم ثماني الهيدرات، وهذا كلوريد الأمونيوم. نحن عادة
نجري التفاعلات الكيميائية في محلول مائي لأن معظم المواد الصلبة
لا تتفاعل بسهولة مع بعضها البعض. ولكن هتان المادتان هما استثناء لتلك القاعدة، فهما تتفاعلان بسهولة وهما في الحالة الصلبة. وهذا التفاعل
يمتص حرارة كثيرة من البيئة المحيطة، فيجعل كل ما يحيط به أبرد. ولأريكم مقدار البرودة سأفعل شيئًا هنا. عليكم فحسب أن تفترضوا أنكم تفهمون ما أفعله. ما الذي أفعله؟ ما الذي يحدث؟ لماذا أفعل هذا؟ هذا غريب يا هانك. لماذا تفعل هذا؟ ثم سأضع هذه فوقها. إذن، لدي هيدروكسيد الباريوم في الدورق، والآن سأسكب كلوريد الأمونيوم في داخله. والآن، أحد النواتج الثانوية
لهذا التفاعل هو الأمونيا. لذا، أنا مضطر إلى شمّه، ولكنكم لن تشموه. رائع! انظروا إلى هذا الوحل! أظن أن المادتين قد تفاعلتا بالكامل، لذا، ينبغي… إذا كان كل شيء قد سار بالشكل الصحيح… أجل! هذا جميل! لقد امتص التفاعل الحرارة من كتلة الخشب درجة أنها تجمّدت والتصقت بالدورق. في عالم الكيمياء، يُعد التفاعل
الذي يجري عفويًا ومع ذلك يمتص الحرارة أمرًا غريبًا للغاية. أنا في الواقع أجد صعوبة
في تصديق ما فعلته للتو. إذن، ما علاقة الإنتروبيا بهذا العرض الغريب؟ قد تظنون أن للأمر علاقة بامتصاص الحرارة
من البيئة المحيطة وجعل النظام أبرد، ولكن مع أن ذلك غير بديهي ورائع، إلا أن الأمر يتعدى ذلك. قد تظنون أيضًا أن للأمر علاقة
بكون مادتان صلبتان قد اتحدتا لتشكلان كمية سوائل وغازات أكثر بكثير وهذا له علاقة كبيرة بالأمر بالفعل، ولكنه ما يزال ناقصًا. لنفهم ما رأيناه للتو بشكل أفضل،
نحتاج إلى ربط كل شيء ببعضه بعضًا. دعونا نبدأ بإيجاد مقدار الحرارة
التي امتصها التفاعل بالضبط وماذا حدث للإنتروبيا كذلك. أولًا، سنجد التغير
في المحتوى الحراري باستخدام قانون هيس والمحتوى الحراري القياسي للتكوين. يمكننا استخدام المعاملات
من المعادلة الكيميائية الموزونة لملء قيم المولات لكل مادة. ثم علينا البحث عن عدة قيم في الجداول، وتذكروا أن هذه الجداول متوفرة على الأنترنت، وفي آخر كتاب الكيمياء
المدرسي المقرر على الأرجح. عندما نضع المحتويات الحرارية القياسية للتكوين
في المعادلة ونجري الحساب نجد أن التغير في المحتوى الحراري
هو زائد 166 كيلوجول. إنها قيمة موجبة، وهذا منطقي،
لأن التفاعل امتص الطاقة الحرارية، بما يكفي لصنع نصف كيلوغرام تقريبًا من الجليد
لو كان محاطًا بالماء بدلًا من الهواء والأصابع. تاليًا، سنجد التغير في الإنتروبيا. تذكروا أن المعادلة الأساسية تبقى على حالها. نُدخل عدد المولات
من المعادلة الكيميائية الموزونة، وقيم الإنتروبيا القياسية من الجدول. وعندها فإن حسبة سريعة ستخبرنا بأن التغير في الإنتروبيا القياسية
هو 594 جول لكل كلفن. والنتيجة الموجبة
تعني أن إنتروبيا التفاعل قد زادت، ما يعني أن النواتج
كانت أقل انتظامًا من المواد المتفاعلة. المحتوي الحراري القياسي يُقاس بالكيلوجول
والإنتروبيا القياسية تُقاس بالجول لكل كلفن. وحدات الطاقة ينبغي أن تكون متطابقة، لذا لنقول
إن الإنتروبيا القياسية 0،594 كليوجول /كلفن. لا يبدو هذا مبهرًا الآن، ولكن انتظروا، فهناك المزيد. تلك الأرقام لا تفسر سبب استمرار التفاعل عفويًا
مع أنه يمتص كل تلك الحرارة من المحيط. ولكن جوزيا ويلارد غيبز، وجد طريقة لتفسير ذلك، بل وقد فعل ذلك من دون قصد. كان غيبز مهتمًا بمقدار الطاقة المتوفرة
في النظام، أو الطاقة الحرة، للقيام بالشغل. ونحن اليوم نسميها طاقة غيبز الحرة، أو أحيانًا الطاقة الحرة القياسية،
أو فقط طاقة النظام الحرة. مثل المحتوى الحراري والإنتروبيا،
فإن طاقة غيبز الحرة هي دالة حالة، وعليه فإن بالإمكان حسابها بالطريقة ذاتها. ما علينا إلا استبدال دلتا G،
والتي ترمز لطاقة غيبز الحرة، بدلتا H أو دلتا S. الطاقة الحرة القياسية للتكوين،
والتي تُكتب هكذا، هي التغير في الطاقة الحرة التي تطرأ عندما يتم تكوين مادة ما
من عناصرها في الحالة القياسية. إنها نظير المحتوى الحراري القياسي للتكوين
الذي استخدمناه لحساب التغير في الإنتروبيا. مثل الإنتروبيا والمحتوى الحراري، لا يمكننا
قياس تغير الطاقة الحرة للتفاعل بأكمله مباشرة. لذا، أنشأ العلماء خط أساس عن طريق تعريف
التغير في الطاقة الحرة القياسية للتكوين للعنصر في أكثر حالاته استقرارًا، أي في حالته القياسية، على أنها صفر. إذن فإن التغير في الطاقة الحرة
القياسية للتكوين للمُركب هو فقط الفرق
بين طاقته الحرة القياسية وخط الأساس ذلك. ولكن ما العمل إذا لم تكونوا تعرفون الطاقة
الحرة القياسية للتكوين للنواتج والمتفاعلات؟ حسنًا، هي عادة مدرجة
في جداول يمكن الرجوع إليها، ولكن أحيانًا لا تكون
القيم التي تحتاجون إليها مذكورة لا تخافوا! فإن لدى ويلارد غيبز
طريقة لحل تلك المشكلة. هي في الواقع معادلة. ولكنه اكتشفها. في العام 1873، حسب غيبز
أنه عند درجة حرارة وضغط ثابتين يكون التغير
في طاقة غيبز الحرة القياسية للتكوين مساويًا للتغير في المحتوى الحراري القياسي مطروحًا منه حاصل ضرب درجة
الحرارة والتغير في الإنتروبيا القياسية. بمعنى آخر، مقدار الطاقة الحرة
التي يوفرها التفاعل للقيام بالشغل يعتمد على عاملين لا ثالث لهما: التغير في المحتوى الحراري،
أي مقدار الحرارة المنتقلة في التفاعل، والتغير في الإنتروبيا، أي مقدار عدم الانتظام
الذي ينشأ عنه عند درجة حرارة معينة. إذن، أيهما أهم؟
انتقال الحرارة أم عدم الانتظام؟ الجواب يعتمد على بضعة عوامل. فالتغير الكبير في المحتوى الحراري يمكنه أن يحدد اتجاه التغير في الطاقة الحرة، حتى إذا تغيرت الإنتروبيا في الاتجاه المعاكس، والعكس صحيح. إذا كانت القيمة المطلقة
للتغير في المحتوى الحراري أكبر من القيمة المطلقة لحاصل ضرب درجة الحرارة والتغير في المحتوى الحراري، أو T في دلتا S، عندها نقول إن التفاعل مدفوع بالمحتوى الحراري. هذا يعني أن تدفق الطاقة الحرارية
يوفر معظم الطاقة الحرة في التفاعل. ومن جهة أخرى، إذا كانت القيم المطلقة لـT في دلتا S أكبر من القيمة المطلقة
للتغير في المحتوى الحراري، فإننا نقول إن التفاعل مدفوع بالإنتروبيا. أي أن الزيادة في عدم الانتظام
توفر معظم طاقة التفاعل الحرة. أي نوع منهما كان تفاعل هيدروكسيد الباريوم؟ حسنًا، سأفترض أن درجة الحرارة هنا
هي حوالي 25 مئوية، أو 298،15 كلفن، لأنني رائع
وأستطيع قياس الحرارة بحاستي السادسة. عندما نضرب ذلك الرقم بالتغير في المحتوى
الحراري الذي حسبناه، وهو 0،494 كيلوجول / كلفن، نحصل على قيمة مقدارها 177 كيلو جول. إذا قارنا تلك القيمة
بالتغير في المحتوى الحراري الذي حسبناه، وهو 166 كيلو جول، يتضح لنا أن T في دلتا S
أعلى من دلتا H، وعليه يكون التفاعل مدفوعًا بالإنتروبيا. هذا ليس مفاجئًا. مع أن التفاعل امتص الكثير من الطاقة الحرارية، فإن هذه الظاهرة
كانت لا تُذكر مقارنة بالزيادة في الإنتروبيا. وهذا منطقي، لأن المعادلة الموزونة
تنتقل من 3 مولات إجمالية من المادة الصلبة، حيث الجزيئات مثبتة في مكانها، إلى مول واحد من المادة الصلبة،
و10 مولات من السائل ومولين من الغاز. هذه زيادة ضخمة في عدم الانتظام لأنه بالإضافة إلى أنه أصبح هناك الآن 13 مولًا
من الجسيمات التي تحتاج إلى التحرك بدلًا من مجرد 3 مولات، فإن جسيمات السائل والغاز كثيرة التحرك، وعليه فإن معظم تلك الجسيمات
تتحرك حركة عشوائية، ولم تعد عالقة في مكان واحد، ما يسبب زيادة كبيرة
في عدم الانتظام، أي الإنتروبيا. ولكن إليكم أروع ما في الأمر: معادلة غيبز تنبئنا أيضًا
بما إذا كان التفاعل عفويًا أم لا. نحن نعرف أن جميع الأنظمة
تنزع إلى حالة أدنى مستوى ممكن من الطاقة، سواء أكانت كرة تتدحرج إلى أسفل تلة أم شريط مطاطي ينقبض ليعود إلى شكله الأصلي أم أيونات موجبة وسالبة تُشكل رابطة. دلتا G هي نوع من الطاقة كما هو واضح، لذا، فإنها تقترب عفويًا من أدنى مستوى ممكن. وعليه إن كانت قيمة دلتا G سالبة، أي إذا تناقصت الطاقة الحرة، فإن التفاعل عفويّ. التفاعلات القادرة على إطلاق طاقة حرة لا تحتاج إلى طاقة خارجية
لتجعلها تواصل التفاعل، وهذا هو تعريف التفاعل العفويّ. لذا، إن كانت دلتا G موجبة، يكون التفاعل غير عفويّ، ولكن التفاعل العكسي يكون عفويًا. إذا كانت دلتا G صفرًا يكون التفاعل في حالة اتزان، ولا يطرأ تغيرًا ملحوظًا في أي من الاتجاهين. إذن، ماذا عن التفاعل الذي أجريته قبل قليل؟
هل هو عفويّ عند درجة حرارة الغرفة؟ هل يمكنه أن يحدث من دون طاقة تدفعه للاستمرار؟ حسنًا، نعم، فقد رأيناه يحدث قبل قليل، ولكن لنجرِ الحسبة. باستخدام معادلة غيبز،
وبإدخال القيم التي حسبناها حتى الآن، نرى أن طاقة غيبز الحرة
لهذا التفاعل هي سالب 11 كيلوجول. لذا، فهو تفاعل عفويّ بالفعل، لأنه يُطلق طاقة بدلًا من الحاجة إليها لبدء التفاعل. الطاقة التي تم إنتاجها
استُخدمت لإعادة ترتيب الروابط في المواد المتفاعلة لصنع جزيئات نواتج أصغر، ولقطع التجاذب بين الجزيئات، ولدفع بعض الجسيمات بعيدًا عن بعضها بعضًا
لتتحول من الحالة الصلبة إلى سائل وغاز، والذي بدوره زاد إنتروبيا النظام. إذن، حتى مع أن التفاعل
امتص الكثير من الطاقة الحرارية فإنه لم يكن بحاجة إلى الطاقة لجعله يستمر لأن التغير الكبير في الإنتروبيا وحده
كان كافيًا لإبقاء التفاعل مستمرًا. إذن، معادلة غيبز تؤكد نتائجنا السابقة باستخدام عملية طرح صغيرة واحدة. يا له من رجل ذكي!ّ والآن، لقد انتقل بعض ذكائه إليكم الآن وقد شاهدتم هذه الحلقة
من Crash Course Chemistry. إذا انتبهتم للحلقة فقد تعلمتم أن المحافظة على النظام أمر صعب لأن هناك طرق عديدة للغاية لانعدام النظام، وأن قانون الديناميكا الحرارية الثاني يعلّمنا
أن عدم الانتظام أو الإنتروبيا يحدث في كل مكان وأن التغير في الإنتروبيا في النهاية يعتمد على مقدار الحيز
الذي تملكه الجزيئات للتحرك، ومقدار الطاقة الحرارية التي بإمكانها إطلاقها
في التفاعلات، وعلى درجة الحرارة من حولها. كما تعلمتم عن جوزيا ويلارد غيبز، ومعادلته لحساب
طاقة غيبز الحرة في التفاعل، وأن الإنتروبيا وطاقة غيبز الحرة
هما دالتا حالة وأن إشارة طاقة غيبز الحرة
تخبرنا بما إذا كانت التفاعل عفويًا أم لا. هذه الحلقة من Crash Course Chemistry
هي من تأليف إدي غونزاليز، ونقح النص بلايك ديباستينو، ومستشار الكيمياء كان د. هايكو لانغنر. الحلقة من تصوير ومونتاج وإخراج نيكولاس جنكنز. مشرف النص كانت كايتلين هوفمايستر ومصمم الصوت هو مايكل أراندا، وفريق الرسومات هو Thought Café.