Thursday Throughput: Tensor Calculus Edition
[ThTh1] So let us consider the intricacies of tensor equations for General Relativity. If you check out equation (1), you’ll find … no, wait … don’t go away! This is cool.
OK, let’s actually talk about General Relativity because there are so many elegant and amazing parts of it. One in particular is relevant to your every day life: time distortion. You see, one of the brilliant insights of Einstein was that objects undergoing acceleration will experience distortions in spacetime. Gravity is an acceleration, so gravity distorts spacetime. Space will compress and time will pass more slowly for something within a gravitational field. If it didn’t, the laws of physics would start to break down.
Usually, when we talk about spacetime distortion, we’re talking about things like black holes. A black hole represents the extreme of gravity and something approaching the event horizon will see time slow down and eventually even stop.
But you don’t need to go to a black hole to see general relativity in action. You only need to pick up your phone. Your phone utilizes the Global Positioning System — a series of satellites in high orbit — to track your position. But the GPS satellites are 20,000 kilometers above the Earth’s surface and are subject to only 5% of the gravitational force we are. What his means is that when we look at at GPS satellite, we can measures its clock moving faster than a clock on the surface of the Earth. 38 microseconds per day, enough to thrown your GPS of by about 10 kilometers.
Well, we just set a new record for how small an effect we can measure. Scientists in Colorado managed to shatter the record for the smallest time dilation measured. They were able to measure the change in the running of an atomic clock if it was raised up a single millimeter. They measured atomic motion to one part in a sextillion, that is a one with 21 zeros.
This isn’t just a cool achievement. This opens up new domains of precision physics, including potential searches for dark matter. We will be able to measure the tiniest physical effects to extreme precision. All because, once again, Einstein was right.
[ThTh2] And speaking of General Relativity, on the largest scales, it can distort spacetime enough to bend light. Here is an illustration of how a cluster of galaxies bends the light of a distant supernova.
This animation demonstrates how light from Supernova Requiem, which exploded ~10 B years ago, was split into multiple images by a massive foreground cluster of galaxies.
ANIMATION: NASA, ESTEC, STScI, Greg T. Bacon (STScI)
via @_AstroErikapic.twitter.com/x0qRHikA3i— Space Explorer Mike (@MichaelGalanin) October 24, 2021
[ThTh3] The internets lit up yesterday with the revelation that Deborah Birx testified to Congress that Donald Trump was distracted during the pandemic and a more attentive Trump could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. This is nothing new and I’ve already talked about most of it. I remain skeptical that a more engaged Trump would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
The one thing that was a bit different this time was that she was more critical of Scott Atlas, who became one of the Preisident’s closest advisors. Atlas denied, as he has for the last year, that he supports a “herd immunity” approach to COVID-19. But these claims started the second he joined the Administration. A number of people have gone on record, including Fauci, Birx and Redfield. And while Atlas may deny he ever advised Trump to pursue herd immunity, his own public statements saying masks didn’t work, touting the Great Barrington Declaration, opposing testing and pushing to re-open schools and businesses even at the height of the pandemic make that claim dubious. So if he doesn’t support the herd immunity approach, he supports all the elements of it.
[ThTh4] The Hubble Space Telescope has gone into safe mode for the second time in four months. Safe mode is a state a spacecraft goes into when something goes wrong and it doesn’t know how to fix. In the case of a space telescope, it ceases science operations, alerts the ground and tries to keep the spacecraft’s solar panels aligned with the Sun while awaiting instructions. This allows the flight engineers time to process the telemetry, figure out what’s happening and coe up with a solution. You want to take your time. You can’t just go up into space and whack the spacecraft upside the head. You want to be very certain of exactly what went wrong, exactly what the solution is and exactly how to implement it.
I don’t want to sound pedantic or anything, but … spacecraft are complicated. There are many many subsystems and many ways they can go wrong. So you want to make sure you have everything covered (and even then, you can mess up). So I expect it will be a few days, if not weeks, before we hear from the Hubble Team. And hopefully, they can get the grand old lady back in business.
[ThTh5] Using ancient records to dig through 3000 years of aurorae. I can only hope that my work is still useful in 3000 years.
[ThTh6] I support renewable energy. But the combination of renewables with shutting down nuclear power is creating a huge spike in fossil fuel useage.
[ThTh7] The planets are so cool:
Watch the rings — and ring arcs! — of #Neptune zip around the planet in this 129-frame movie captured by #Voyager 2 in 1989. pic.twitter.com/Eh4I4F86Ad
— Ian Regan 💙 (@IanARegan) October 22, 2021
[ThTh8] More relativity? Yes, more. One of the mind-boggling aspects of general relativity is that while nothing can move faster than the speed of light, spacetime itself can expand faster than light. One rough comparison is that a runner on a track might be limited in how fast he can run but the track can expand as fast as it wants. The results of this is that there may be large parts of the universe we will never see because they are moving too fast away from us.
ThTh6. I just do not understand folks who are worried about climate change and then fight to close nuclear plants…Report
Some of those plants need to shut down (end of life, no feasible way to breathe new life into them).
What I don’t get are the people who make it nearly impossible to bring new plants &/or new nuclear tech online (that isn’t the holy grail of fusion).Report
You mean like Vogtle 3 and 4, where every stage has been plagued by major construction errors? Vogtle was licensed promptly, never dragged through court (other than during the Westinghouse bankruptcy), got $8B in federal government bond guarantees, and is still taking 14 years to construct. At a bit over $12B per GW of capacity. Next door in South Carolina, the Summer 2 and 3 construction was abandoned after some billions of dollars had been spent because it was cheaper to buy power from basically any other source than to finish construction.Report
Why are Vogtle and Summer over budget? Why are they plagued by construction issues? Could it be because the construction of a nuclear power plant is a rather specialized project, kind of like building a nuclear submarine, or a nuclear aircraft carrier, and if there are large time gaps between when such places or things are built, you lose the people with that critical skill set and experience. Thus the people trying to do it have to relearn all the lessons learned long ago, while also making the mistakes that go hand in hand with whatever changes have happened since then.
I know you have this soapbox regarding the cost of nuclear, but that cost is not magical, it is an artifact of both the regulatory burden (even if entirely justified) and the loss of critical knowledge among the contracting community because few reactors get built and the time between them is long. It is a demon of our own making, because there is a strong fear bias against nuclear.
Why is coal/nat gas/co-gen cheap? Because we build those regularly. It’s practically rote by now, and the designs are effectively modular. Even wind turbines get installed so fast because there is a whole industry that has matured to make sure they go up as fast as possible.
If we want more nuclear, we need to suffer the expense of learning how to build more nuclear, OR we have to allow engineers to actually develop better nuclear (like we are with NuScale) that doesn’t have such a steep learning curve every damn time.Report
PS Anyone (not specifically you, Mike) who thinks fusion plants will be cheaper than fission is not in touch with reality. I know it’s a sci-fi staple, but even when we finally tame that process, those first few commercial scale plants will cost billions to build. And they will stay that way until we’ve got a few under our belt and the construction industry knows what they are doing.Report
My “official” position is that by the time commercial fusion is available at a competitive price, we’ll have solved the problem some other way and there will be no market for it.Report
From what I’ve seen so far, the first iterations of commercial fusion power won’t be sustained reactions (the star in a bottle), they’ll be pulsed reactions.Report
I hope that this is most of it.
My worry is that we don’t know how to do stuff anymore.Report
SpaceX.Report
I feel a little bit better, I guess.
But if I heard that Elon Musk was going to start nuclear reactors, my response would be mixed.
Part would include “oh, good… maybe they’ll be completed.”
But there would be other parts that would be asking “what the hell?”, among other questions.Report
Are you kidding? My response would be invest invest invest!Report
Musk seems to have very high personal risk tolerance. After all, SpaceX is rather known for blowing shit up, and Musk being fine with this. After all, it’s testing. Tests fail. That’s why we test.
That’s one sort of thing when the worst case scenario is a predictable explosion on a rocket launch pad. A fission reactor is quite a different level of risk.
For example, there is this one reactor in Japan …
“But surely Musk would behave differently with nuclear!”
Um, I have zero trust in such a statement. Over time he’s demonstrated very poor impulse control. I mean, seriously. The guy is a bit of a nutcase. He honestly thinks cramming a bunch of cars in a narrow tunnel with very limited access is a good idea. It’s such a fundamental lack of “engineering common sense” combined with a stubborn refusal to consider the opinions of subject matter experts. Yikes.
It is simply this, Musk’s crazy pants risk tolerance combined with the fact there would be no way to hold him properly accountable for disaster …
No. Just no.
The people who thrive in SV startup culture are not the same people we want working on nuclear power. “Move fast, break things” is a fine ethos for a provider of online entertainment. It is not the right kind of ethos for high risk public works.Report
Michael is right about the costs, but I wouldn’t get too stressed about things blowing up, unless the reactor type is one that has a real risk of blowing up.
The thing about the reactor designs the nukes have been developing these past few decades is that they are designed to be explosive-accident-proof. Mostly by removing the things from the reactor cores that tend to rapidly expand when they get hot, and/or creating cores that will naturally slow down a reaction that is getting too hot.
So it would really depend on what Musk wanted to play with, and who he hired to play with it (because Musk is not a nuke engineer and has no business pretending he is one).Report
Now let’s go through why Oscar has a point, and why fission reactors are different than rockets.
Lots of places will let you blow up rocket motors and even entire rockets. No state or private land owner will let you build a fission reactor without a federal license that basically says, “The NRC guarantees it won’t blow up.”
You can do a lot of rocketry development and testing for $100M. An NRC license for a new large reactor class will run about an order of magnitude more. Not just do you have to design it down to the last nuts and bolts, you have to pay for the NRC to learn enough to verify that design. Then you can start building.
Currently, all known licensed designs run on the order of $8B per GW of faceplate power (yes, including NuScale’s first module). So you need someone to pop for the billion-dollar license, and the $8B (assuming a GW plant). If SpaceX had needed $9B up front, and eight or more years before there was any revenue, they’d have failed*.
If you don’t have a national government involved, new reactor designs aren’t ever going to be done. Eg, Obama guaranteed $8B in bonds for the Vogtle plants; DOE is providing the land and a billion dollars towards the first NuScale module. Reagan said the US is not in the reactor design business, and Clinton nailed that down. Trump’s administration took some quarter-assed steps to reverse that, but clearly aren’t serious.
* The Georgia PSC, in order to keep Southern Co. from pulling the plug on Vogtle 3 and 4, allowed for the first time ever a utility to charge customers for the construction costs of a plant that may never generate a single watt.Report
I note that NuScale is up to $1.3B for a 60 MWe first module. They no longer talk about when or even if the prices will ever be lower than that. Some of the increase, interestingly, has nothing to do with nuclear per se. They decided that the politics of the feds confiscating water from the Snake River were too ugly, that the river is so overcommitted they couldn’t buy sufficient water rights, so went to air cooling. That increases the costs and decreases the thermal efficiency.
It’s entirely possible that some day fission prices will come down. I assert that it’s far enough away that we can’t afford to wait. Either build some other low- or no-carbon tech, or pay really high prices for nuclear electricity.Report
Or the tech has to be developed somewhere that is not in the US. But I’m not holding my breath for that either.Report
ThTh3: of course he was distracted. Houses were burning, thugs were in the streets. Afghanistan suffered too (apparently “home defense” does “paranoia planning” when they’re not busy looking for agents provocateur).
Project Salus is the sort of thing DoD does for fun. When DoD is distracted by fires in the streets, not so much.Report
Gosh, when I saw this was titled “Tensor Calculus Edition,” I was expecting to fully understand the Reimann curvature tensor just by reading it.
Anyway, I find Tensor analysis deeply beautiful, despite the fact I have quite a meager understanding of the machinery. That said, the “geometric” view of GR to me seems profound. I’ve cracked the spine of the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler/Kaiser a few times, but I’ve never really made it past the first third, and that’s just the “easy track.” But still, I think I can kind of glimpse what is happening. It’s really cool.
Part of me wishes that the Wheeler-esque geometric view of physics was true “deep down” (whatever that means). From my few brushes with QM, I find all the wave function stuff somehow unsatisfying.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with how nature actually works. The world isn’t here to please us. But anyway, I’m just musing.Report
Just to add, my first statement was meant to be amusing and friendly, not snide. I hope it came across that way. If not, I apologize in advance.
(The joke is that I find diff. geometry really hard to grasp, but it is something I would like to understand someday.)Report
I’ve never read Michael Spivak’s books on differential geometry, but if they’re as good as Calculus on Manifolds, they’re pretty good.
Trivia: Spivak is also the guy that created the E, Em, Eir pronouns.Report
Yeah, Calculus on Manifolds is pretty great. Honestly, though, I find it strangely easier to learn “physics math” from physics texts rather than math texts. I find the physics texts tend to play to my visual intuition more than pure math texts.
Likewise I learn a lot of “logic/formal-systems” stuff from CompSci texts. In this case, it’s not my visual intuition, but just my experience writing software that lets me “grasp” the subject.
I still prefer to approach algebra from a pure math perspective. I’m not sure why.
And you just out-trans-knowledged me. Congrats!Report
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tension, apprehension,
And dissension have begun.
Report
Honestly, though, I find it strangely easier to learn “physics math” from physics texts rather than math texts. I find the physics texts tend to play to my visual intuition more than pure math texts.
It is the same to me. I studied line and surface integrals in math and, though I passed the course, it made no sense to me. It was like Gauss was bored or something. The following term I studied the same concepts in Electromagnetic Theory and it was bloody obvious what those integrals meant in the real world 😇Report
Yeah, that’s a perfect example. Moreover, that’s really how that math developed. Field theory emerged from trying to solve physical problems.
As a total math nerd aside, I see some clear parallels between complex analysis and field theory, particularly the Cauchy Integral Theorem, and various similar things. I’m also aware that Hamilton discovered the Quaternions while trying to find something like complex numbers, but in 3 dimensions (so naturally he found 4 dimensions, because the gods are cruel). Anyway, I’ve always kind of assumed that Hamilton wanted to apply stuff like Cauchy to something like field equations, although I’ve never seen that spelled out.
Modern math texts are often quite divorced from the historic context of how the math was developed. For example, modern Galois theory looks absolutely nothing like what Galois actually did. Most Galois theory texts will mention the historic context, but not explain it. For that you have to seek out specialized texts.
This is fine, I guess. I suspect most students care more about how they can apply these things in their current work, and delving into outdated notation and ideas would take up valuable brain real estate without much payoff. Still, it interests me quite a lot.
I think physics texts are somewhat better at this, but only somewhat.Report
Oh and I love this:
One can hardly quantify the amount of wonderful math we have nowadays because one afternoon either Guass or Euler were bored.Report
My own opinion is that almost all of the useful stuff would have been developed by someone else anyway. I became even more convinced of the time the prof asked me to stay after the graduate topology class. “Have you been reading old topology texts?” he asked. As the class was being taught using the Moore method, that would have been a serious violation of the rules. When I asked why, he told me that the proof I’d done in class was the way that particular theorem was proven up until 20 years earlier. It was correct, but a dead end. Eventually a different proof opened up a variety of new things. The thing was that for that proof there had been an “Aha!” moment for me when all the pieces fell together in my head.Report
You were actually not allowed to read other topology texts? That so weird.Report
That’s the Moore method. Interesting to experience once. At least at that time, that’s the only way UT-Austin ever taught the first graduate topology class.Report
Ah. I guess I can see a class like that being fun, at least for topology.
I’m not sure I’d enjoy learning, say, complex analysis that way.Report
Note I said “interesting” rather than fun, and I intended that in hindsight. It certainly wasn’t fun that semester in Austin. The Moore method requires a very large investment in time and effort by the students, I was also taking algebra, which I was never strong in, graduate analysis taught as a fail-out class, and TA’ing for a demanding (but fair) professor. They didn’t fail me out, but they did chase me out. The recently upgraded operations research group was happy to take me.Report
ThTh4: Have we tried turning it off and turning it back on? Or maybe blowing into it?Report
Maybe some random space debris will hit it and knock it back into shape (she says and then quickly flees the room before any actual astronomers can respond).Report
Ah, yes, percussive maintenance.Report