Showing posts with label biology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biology. Show all posts

Monday, August 29, 2016

The Science of Game of Thrones

The show Game of Thrones is not for everyone. It can be gruesome, crass, lewd, rude and otherwise skewed. That being said, I love it, as do many others. Like all fantasy stories it takes place in a fictional, created world. One of the few rules in a created world is that it needs to be internally consistent.

In this post I will compare the science and physics of George R.R. Martin's created world against our own real world. George R.R. Martin's world is internally consistent, and shares much in common with ours, but not everything (notably: dragons). Due to this difference, making a comparison between the two worlds is inherently pointless. The only purpose will be to learn some neat things about our own world along the way.

Two quick points: One, I've separated this post into two sections, non-spoilers and spoilers. The latter section will be denoted thusly:


<SPOILERS>

Second, you needn't be a Game of Thrones fan to read this, as I'll be briefly explaining each topic at hand, and the bulk of the post will be about real-world science and physics.


Variable Seasons

In the Game of Thrones universe, seasons are variable, and as far as I can tell only include summer and winter skipping fall and spring altogether. Seasons tend to last about 5-7 years each. The most recent summer, unusually long, has lasted about a decade when the show starts.

So what gives? How can seasons be variable? On Earth, some years are harsher than others, but we can be certain that we'll see one summer and one winter on each trip around the sun.

Perhaps on the planet on which Westeros (the island on which the series mostly takes place) lies, traces out an unstable orbit around its central star or stars. Scientists have discovered some very strange star systems that have 2, 3, or even up to five stars.


Image:www.ras.org.uk

If the Game of Thrones planet was in orbit around one of the stars in this five star system, we might get the very odd seasons we're looking for, but here's the rub - these stars are pretty far apart. Looking at the scale, we can see that you could easily nestle every one of our own planets in the middle of this system, meaning that the light from the distant stars probably wouldn't have much of an effect on the seasons. On the other hand, if our planet was in the triple-star part of this system, I imagine it would be a bit brighter during the nights than in depicted in the show.

Alright - what about a really elongated orbit? That would change seasons pretty dramatically. Unfortunately, this doesn't work either, as this system is still predictable, and you'd end up with extremely long winters and short, intense summers.


Image: www.uwgb.edu


Comets spend well over half their time in the most distant parts of their orbit.
Haley's Comet spends half its time past Neptune alone.

So that's not it either... Maybe the planet is haphazardly tumbling through space after being hit by several large objects heading in different directions in the planet's distant past. I like this idea; it accounts for a fair bit of unpredictability, and could be a perfectly good reason why the seasons are so askew. Here's the interesting bit though - This sort of orbit doesn't arise in the normal way, that is, a planet condensing and aggregating as part of a huge cloud of interstellar gas around a central star or stars. This planet would almost certainly be a so-called 'rogue planet,' a planet that was floating through empty space, eventually being captured by the central star and entering orbit. That would account for the lack of a somewhat stable orbit, and would mean by definition that our familiar cast of characters on Westreros are indeed aliens in their own solar system (as if we needed yet another show about aliens).

If variable seasons are of interest to you, you can read more HERE.

Valyrian Steel

Valyrian steel in Game of Thrones is an ancient product of metallurgy whose secret has been lost to the ages. Renowned for their sharpness and ability to hold an edge, Valyrian steel weapons have become rare, and as such, are either reserved for royalty or are treasured family heirlooms whose history can be traced back hundreds of years.

Here is a description of Widow's Wail, a sword from the books:
"MosValyrian steel was a grey so dark it looked almost black, as was true here as well. But blended into the folds was a red so deep as the grey. The two colors lapped over one another without ever touching, each ripple distinct, like waves of night and blood upon some steely shore."
And here is a picture of real-life Damascus Steel:

Image: Frank Schulenburg

Damascus steel is made by folding many layers of different types of steel (high carbon and low carbon, for instance) together over and over, then drawing the layers out into a blade. If you start with 7 sheets, and fold it over once, you have 14-layer steel, fold it again and you have 28-layer, and so on and so forth. Once the blade is formed, the blacksmith dips the steel into ferric chloride, and this distinctive ripple pattern emerges because ferric chloride etches different types of steel to different shades. This produces the lovely ripple pattern seen in Damascus and Valyrian steel weapons.

Interested in Damascus steel and how it's made? Check out this video:





Geology of Westeros

This is a pretty interesting topic, and I can't do it anymore justice than the wonderful people at the Generation Antropocene podcast. Click around their website HERE and enjoy. They've certainly done their research.


The Wall

A while ago (thousands of years) a massive wall of ice was built in the far north of Westeros. It is 300 miles long, 700 feet high, and perhaps 100 feet deep. This is a total volume of ~ 3.14 (huh, pi) kilometers cubed, or about 1.3 Mount Everests. All told, this Wall has on the order of 10^15 joules of gravitational energy locked up in it, about a thousand times more than the pyramid at Giza (~10^12 joules). This is roughly the same amount of energy required to launch 1,000 of the Apollo 11 Saturn V's, and the minimum amount of energy that would have been needed to construct the Wall. 

You can build stone up to quite a height, but ice, not so much. Among the tallest fully stone structures is the Washington Monument at 169 meters, and the tallest ice structure I could find was an ice palace made in China in 2013, at 48 meters.


The physics that govern whether or not the Wall from Game of Thrones would be possible are a bit beyond my grasp, but the short answer is that the Wall absolutely could not stand, and I can't tell you just how much it couldn't stand because I'm not an engineer, but let's agree that it's a lot.

Sidenote - I was using Wolfram|Alpha to do these calculations, and I was hoping to get one of these bad boys:



... but I didn't. If you're curious about the question in the text field above, check out the answer HERE.



<SPOILERS>

The Dothraki

We'll start the spoiler section off with one from Season 1. In Game of Thrones, there is a group called the Dothraki, which are very similar to the Mongols in the early 13th century, just before their unification under Temujin, better known as the great leader, or Genghis Khan. Both groups have a relationship with horses, are nomadic, and have specific rules against bloodshed, considering it dishonorable, among other similarities.

Be waned, this next part is gruesome, it's Mongol history, after all (feel free to skip ahead to the Wildfire section).

Being a big Mongol history geek, I was amazed in season one, when I saw the death of the character Viserys, executed by having molten gold poured on his head, I immediately thought of the once governor of Otrar, a man called Inalchuq.

Genghis Khan formed his empire from scratch by unifying many warring groups in the Mongolian steppes. In expanding the boundaries of his empire to new cities, the first step was usually to send a few ambassadors, along with goods for trade. This was exactly how he proceeded when reaching out to the city of Otrar.

Accounts differ, but due to either some small insult or greed, the governor Inalchuq seized the caravan and massacred every member, selling the goods and pocketing the dough (there may have been yeast, but dough here refers to cash).

News got back to the great Khan, and he responded by sending three more emissaries to demand punishment of the governor. The governor responded by beheading one emissary, unpleasantly dishonoring the other two, then sending them back to their Khan.

In retaliation, Genghis Khan personally led a months-long siege of Otrar, eventually breaching the walls and cornering the Governor, who was then summarily executed, reportedly by means of having molten silver poured onto his head. Sound familiar?


Wildfire

Wildfire, the green flame that is nigh impossible to extinguish, played a big role in the Battle of Blackwater, repelling Stannis' ships, but the destruction of the Sept of Baelor was where we saw the destructive power of wildfire on full display.

Wildfire acts a lot like a real-world substance called Greek Fire. Greek Fire has a long history, as it is an umbrella term describing many war-based applications of fire used by many historic cultures before and after the Greeks.



Image: Wikimedia



To simplify things, I'll discuss what I have come to consider as "standard Greek Fire." For the purposes of this post, "standard Greek Fire" is a highly flammable mixture of naphtha (pitch), saltpeter, sulfur, and calcium phosphate. A lot of the ingredients for self-oxidizing black powder are here, as well as pitch, a very sticky and flammable substance. This particular cocktail of ingredients would have been particularly devastating to a fleet of wooden ships approaching a foreign shore. Being self-oxidizing, Greek Fire could potentially burn underwater, and the pitch would have provided adequate stickiness to keep fire near wood for long enough to do some actual damage.

Greek Fire could have been deployed much the same way as depicted in the show: little clay pots and containers, set alight and hurled at the invading fleet.


Image: ancientresource.com


In digging around about Greek Fire, I found this quote from the Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville, describing the use of Greek Fire in the Seventh Crusade:
           "This was the fashion of the Greek fire: it came on as broad in front as a vinegar cask, and the tail of fire that trailed behind it was as big as a great spear; and it made such a noise as it came, that it sounded like the thunder of heaven. It looked like a dragon flying through the air. Such a bright light did it cast, that one could see all over the camp as though it were day, by reason of the great mass of fire, and the brilliance of the light that it shed."

That sounds a lot like Game of Thrones to me.



Dragons

This is a big topic, so I'll try to briefly touch on a lot of interesting points in this last section.

Dragon Fire

How do dragons go about making fire? We know they breathe it out of their mouths as seen time and time again, but how is it done biologically? Looking at game of thrones might give us our best clues, because we get some nice close-ups of the dragons' 'fire organs.'



Image: HBO


In the scene above the dragon is threatening to produce fire, but not actually breathing fire, giving us a good look at how this feat might be done. Notice that the fire originates in the far back of the throat, in the center. This goes against my initial theory that the dragon might mix two highly reactive chemicals, combining them outside of the mouth to avoid burns much like a flamethrower.


Image: HBO

I initially thought that these ducts on either side of the dragons jaw (above) would spew out those reactive chemicals, but now I'm thinking that these ducts may expel an accelerant, rather than the primary flame mechanism.

Alright, on to a reasonable model of how this might be done, and how the ability might have evolved. The digestive system produces a lot of flammable gasses, as seen in this clip from the show Mythbuters. Dragons, as obligate carnivores would have a short digestive system that produces a lot of natural gasses such as flammable methane. If the dragon evolved to store and pressurize this methane, while making it available to the front end rather than the back, this is the beginning of a functional flamethrower. As for production of a spark to set everything alight, two theories that dominate the discussion:


  1) Dragons eat small rocks to aid digestion like many birds do, and among these rocks might be particles of flint and steel, which may coat the teeth and produce small sparks when clicked together.
2) Dragons may use static ignition to ignite the fuel mixture, basically making use of static electricity to start a "pilot light."

Lastly, what about an evolutionary reason for fire breathing to come about? Dragons use their fire to intimidate, and as an offensive weapon, but I think the evolutionary driver may have been the ability to cook their food. Humans, once we learned how to utilize fire, immediately put it to use cooking our foods and meat. Eating cooked meat increases the caloric benefit, is safer and more efficient than eating raw meat. This, more than the offensive capabilities of fire breathing, would probably be the best evolutionary driver of the fire breathing ability.


A Quick Note on Dragons and Wyverns

People have argued at length about what constitutes a dragon, and what constitutes a Wyvern. A Wyvern, for those who have not heard the term, is a weaker and less powerful 'cousin' of the dragon, and has two feet and two wings. A dragon traditionally has four legs, as well as two wings on its back.

If we go strictly by the number of legs, many traditional dragons are in fact Wyverns, including those appearing in Game of Thrones.



Image: HBO
Poser

It's my personal view as a descriptivist,  as long as your meaning is clear, call it what you want. I wouldn't say that creature above is a weaker relative of a dragon... at least, not to its face.


Can Dragons Fly?

Some scientists used to be convinced that bumblebees couldn't fly, according to their understanding of physics. It turns out that bees can fly [citation needed] but we only figured it out after filming them in slow motion.

People have since asked that same question about dragons. Dragons obviously come in many shapes and sizes, but overall, small dragons probably could fly, while larger ones could not.

The main factors to consider are the square-cube law, and the body-weight-to-wing-size ratio. The square-cube law is the idea that the larger something is, the more volume it has in proportion to its surface area. Compare a human to an elephant; the elephant may be 2 or 3 times longer than the human is tall, but an elephant weighs many many times more. This is because as you increase something in one dimension, say length, the other two dimensions must increase as well (height and width). A human twice as tall as another won't weigh twice as much, but rather 23, or 8 times as much.


Image: N.R. Eccles-Smith
Steven

Let's consider a 5 meter, 1000 kg dragon named Steven, and a dragon that is twice as long named Carol. Sizable Steven has a 5 meter wingspan, and his wings are 2 meters wide, giving his wings a rough surface area of 10 square meters, and a body weight of 1000 kgs. His body-weight-to-wing-size ratio would be 100:1 (every square meter of wing must lift 100 kg).


Image N.R. Eccles-Smith
Carol

Colossal Carol, on the other hand would be twice as large, with a 10 meter wingspan and 4-meter-wide wings, giving her 40 square meters of wing real estate (a squared factor for two dimensions). Her weight, however increases as a cubed factor, so Carol would be an 8,000 kg dragon, and have a body-weight-to-wing-size ratio of 200:1.

For comparison, an eagle can weight about 5 kg, and has a wing surface area of a little less than a meter squared, so their ratio is roughly 5:1.

My best estimate for the largest dragon that could fly might be about car-sized, if it used most of its body weight for flight muscles and ate fairly constantly, which is essentially the formula for a giant hummingbird.



How Big do Dragons Get?

According to legend, the dragons in the Game of Thrones universe never stop growing, but just get larger and larger. The idea is that the only way to kill a dragon is via combat. Some have been documented as living for centuries.

This reminded me of a somewhat humbler animal here at home: the lobster.

Before I get too in-depth in nerding out about lobsters, I need to talk about two quick things, senescence and telomeres (a word that spell check insists is a misspelling of "omelette").

Senescence is the usual process of aging and includes things like the general weakening of the body, greater vulnerability to disease, exiting sexual maturity, and making terrible jokes.

Telomeres are the 'caps' of chromosomes - long repeating sequences of DNA base pairs that exist at the ends of chromosomes. Every time a cell divides, the chromosome becomes just a little bit shorter, and the telomeres are there so that this shortening of the chromosome destroys the useless genetic sequences, rather than any genes we would prefer to keep around.


Image: med.stanford.edu
Telomeres in green


So what does this have to do with lobsters? Lobsters do not undergo senescence in the same way most animals do. They are able to grow, mate, and go about their daily life right up until their death, just like dragons. Rather than slowly getting old and breaking down, they generally die by being eaten, molting their shell (a strenuous activity) or by getting a lethal disease. Some even make the claim that lobsters are immortal, even though this is not the case. They can, however, get impressively big.



Image: National Geographic

Part of the reason lobsters can get so large and live so long is that they have an particularly effective enzyme called telomerase that repairs damage to telomeres after cell division. Humans have this enzyme too, it just doesn't work as well (Interesting note, the 'useless' sequence that gets added to the ends of our chromosomes is "GGGTTA" over and over again).

Some of the interesting work in the field of gerontology (the study of ageing), looks at the Hayflick Limit, the number of times the telomeres can undergo cell division without losing functionality. The Hayflick Limit is much higher in lobsters than in humans.

Back to the main point - In the Game of Thrones universe, dragons can live for centuries, and they never stop growing. This is probably because a dragon has either impressively long telomeres, resulting in a high Hayflick Limit and long life lacking senescence, or they have fantastic telomerase, achieving the same end result.



</SPOILERS>




If you stuck around and read all that without having seen the show, thanks, and I hope you were able to learn a few things along the way, and if you are a show-watcher, enjoy this little extra nugget of Game of Thrones goodness in the off season as we wait for Season 7.




Cheers,

     - Scott



I don't publish these regularly, so the best way to know when a new one is up is through email subscription (one email per post, never more):

tinyletter.com/scottsieke

Monday, February 15, 2016

What Superpower Would You Want?





Like many a human, I sometimes think about what superpowers I would love to have in some alternate Marvel or DC reality.

How great would it be to read minds, be invisible, or have super speed? If I was a different sort of person I'd stop there, but I'm not, so I didn't. I thought about what day-to-day life would be like having these abilities, and what challenges I would face.

First off, if suddenly I found myself with an ability like flight, I imagine I would become the center of a media frenzy. I'd be labeled a "flier," and upon demonstrating my ability, I'm sure the FAA would intervene and some strange combination of litigation and regulation would ensue, all among journalists outside my door and talk show invitations...

...so I'd probably try to keep it to myself. This same sort of thing would happen with any demonstrable superpower, save perhaps more subtle ones like telepathy or invisibility.

For the purpose of this post, let's assume we live in a universe where superheros are not unheard of, yet all the same physics applies.


With any superpower, my first thought is generally "How can I use this to save people?" Superpowers aside, if I were a superhero, I think I would have a hard time finding crime (Though some ecologists have tried). It's not predictable, so it would be a lot "right place, right time" encounters. Many people are armed, so unless I was invincible like Superman, I'd leave the crime fighting to those with training, body armor, and experience.

Fighting crime with superpowers is dodgy, so in the long run I would probably end up using my powers for really banal purposes like turning off the monitor from across the room, or commuting, but that would still be pretty excellent.

Here are my personal pros and cons lists for some common superpowers:


Super Speed

Pros:
 - Shorter commute
 - Exotic vacations
 - Save on gas

Cons:
 - Concussions, passing out
 - Barreling into bugs, birds, and buildings
 - You would melt if you go too fast


Air is not empty. It's made of nitrogen, oxygen, and lots of "other." If you start trying to barrel through that at high velocity you start to heat up. If you travel at orbital velocity, this happens:
You do not want this
to happen to you
If you could run arbitrarily quickly, you could presumably accelerate arbitrarily quickly as well (as depicted in superhero films and Roadrunner cartoons). The problem with this is that your body cannot stand up to much acceleration; 60 - 80 G's to the head and you'll die. It's like the old saying goes, it isn't the fall that kills you, but the sudden stop. Same goes for super speed; if you stop on a dime (18 mm) going the speed of a bullet (350 m/s) you would pull over a quarter million (347k) G's. That'll kill you.

So let's say that's no problem; you're always very careful to accelerate slowly to avoid death by acceleration, what about turning? Highways are fairly straight most of the time. The tightest allowable turn on a US highway is denoted by this equation (page 63 here):
V is velocity in mph, R is the radius of the turn in feet. Your shoes, before they disintegrated, have about the same grip on asphalt as tires. If you stick a large speed in this equation for V, you quickly get an arbitrarily huge radius R (Mach 2.5 [not really that fast] yields the radius of the Earth [big]). You could tighten the radius a little because you can pull more G's than a car going the speed limit on the highway, but you can't cheat the underlying principle: if you want to go fast, you have to go essentially straight. If you want to execute a normal turn at a city intersection without pulling more than 3 G's, roughly the same amount as astronauts experience at takeoff, you would have to slow down to 55 miles per hour; any faster and a normal human risks passing out from a lack of blood in their brain.

Alright, lets say you're also very careful to slow down for turns. Here's the real clincher. Humans can't react to things immediately. Human reaction time is around 250 milliseconds, or around a quarter of a second. If you are travelling at 100 m/s (less than the max speed of a Ferrari), then you'll have traveled 25 meters, over 80 feet, before you can possibly react to anything in your path. If you are travelling at airline velocity, it is impossible to react to anything up to a little more than a football field away. Orbital velocity puts that distance at more than a mile. Are you willing to bet your life that the terrain is that smooth and featureless?

My last point is made most clearly by this picture:


Eww.



E l a s t i c i t y

Pros:
 - Reach the TV remote without getting up
 - Can give self back rubs

Cons:
 - You don't get to violate conservation of matter
 - Can't pick up things too far away
 - Get turned inside-out


Elasticity sounds pretty cool, and might come with the fewest problems. Let's assume your body can infinitely rearrange itself to achieve any shape, filling the new shape with the optimal bone, muscle and skin arrangement. The one rule you cant break is conservation of matter; if you're 75 kilograms, you're always 75 kilograms, no cheating.

The farther away your arms get from you, the less effective they are at picking things up. If you always have 4 kg worth of arm, and you stretch it out across the room, then your arm has to lift the same  4 kg mass, but the mass is farther away from the joint, and the less you can lift. Eventually your bone gets thin and brittle and will simply break under the load. Fortunately you can solve this problem by turning yourself inside out.

The lankiest animal I can think of is the daddy long legs (the term "daddy long legs" is confusing as demonstrated by this video. Here I'm talking about harvestmen).
Some people don't like
pictures of spiders

Spiders' legs are arranged in an exoskeleton. I think this is the best way to arrange our appendages to reach faraway objects and actually have a chance at picking them up. I started to go down the rabbit hole of the physics of exoskeletons, but after filling a sheet of paper with drawings and poorly-understood torque equations, I decided I was barking up the wrong tree. Humans and spiders are both made of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, so elastically rearrangeable humans could turn their arm into a spider arm with the same proportions (this arm would be inside out, with bone on the outside, skin and muscle on the inside).

Oddly, the internet doesn't have really exact numbers on harvestmen proportions, so I used this image to figure out how much longer the legs are in proportion to their length (which was unnerving at full scale). The front leg is 20 pixels wide and 2200 pixels long, meaning it is more than 100 times longer than it is wide. My arm is 10-12 cm in diameter, so if I used the same proportions, it could possibly be 12 meters (40 feet) long and still function somewhat. This is ignoring the cubed root law (things in three dimensions don't scale linearly because while length grows linearly, mass grows exponentially), which is really not something you should ignore. The actual reach would be much shorter than our spider dimensions.

My totally uninformed off-the-cuff guess is that you would just barely be able to lift the TV remote from across the room, but there's no way you could pick up a gallon of milk from the same distance.



<Telepathy>

Pros:
 - Knowing what people around you are thinking.

Cons:
 - Knowing what people around you are thinking.


...Immortality...

Pros:
 - Laugh in Death's face
 - Loss of universal human fear (one of them)
 - +1 to courage

Cons:

 - Scarred and ugly (-1 to appearance)
 - No friends
 - No memory
 - Seem insane to others

Human minds are awful at large numbers. Here is a cool metaphor for 52 factorial (the number of ways to shuffle a deck of cards) The concept of infinity is incomprehensible, and thinking of a human being living on that timescale gets pretty terrifying pretty quickly.

First off, look at your hands. Seriously. Chances are there's a scar on at lest one of them. That scar takes up a very small percentage of your hand, but then again, you've only had a small amount of time to acquire scars on your hand. If you ran the clock an arbitrarily large amount forward, every bit of you would have some kind of scar and you'd end up looking like Deadpool.

If you continue to run the clock, humans would evolve around you, and eventually you would look to future humans how Neanderthals look to us. This might limit the *cough**cough* appeal you have to the sapiens of the distant future.


Hey there hot stuff

Here is where things start getting weird. Humans do not have perfect memory, and are adapted to remember an 80-ish year long highlight reel (To oversimplify). Someone who lives for hundreds of years (not to mention billions) would not be able to store much more than what was for them their extremely recent past. Friendship would always be fleeting, and would lose their profundity. Friends would become a nicety, like having a pet, rather than a meaningful, balanced relationship. Political strife and wars would blend together leading to political apathy, or at least bemusement (think Tom Bombadil from the Lord of the Rings books). You would likely seem insane to others based off the way you interacted with the world that was streaming by you.

A lot of brilliant people have delved into the question of what it would be like to be immortal, or live a very long life, including Tolkien (Tom Bombadil), Gene Roddenberry (Spock was long lived), Catherine Tregenna (The Woman Who Lived, Doctor Who episode[one of the best treatments of immortality]), Oscar Wilde (Dorain Gray), and Douglas Adams (Bowerick Wowbagger). This is a really interesting question and for the sake of brevity, I'll leave that one here.

->Invisibility<-

Pros:
 - Ability to sneak into events
 - Fun pranks on friends
 - Fun pranks on enemies
 - No sunburns

Cons:

 - Not actually invisible
 - Blind

There are two ways invisibility is portrayed in media. One is that you and your clothes are both invisible. I'm writing this off as a cop-out to make the idea more palatable for young viewers. For this purpose, only you can become invisible, not your clothes.

This naturally means that to take advantage of your invisibility, yoooooou'd have to be naked. Time to move to California. Temperatures under 60 degrees just wont do to take full advantage of your invisibility.

Alright, so you've stripped down and you're ready to go pester people, dispense justice to wrongdoers, and haunt your ex's. First you have to make sure you're really invisible. Have you washed yourself well? Surely the dust and dirt on your body isn't invisible. How about sweat? Make sure it isn't too hot, or people will see an outline of moisture following them as they're just trying to order lunch. In the rain you'll have the same problem. Be sure not to stay out too long, or you'll collect dirt and be perfectly visible.

What if the invisibility is just a property of your living cells? You would be very nearly wholly visible, as your epidermis consists of dead sacs of keratin, not living human cells. Your hair would sure look nice though.

Let's say you have figured out a way to stay cool, clean and dry, and include your skin and hair in your veil of invisibility. You move on to the next problem. Your blindness.

In order to be invisible, light has to either pass through you, or move around you and keep going along their original path. This means that either way, you are not interacting with any light, which is a shame, because that's how you see (there are materials that do this).


The rainbow bars are incoming light,
and the solid green area is invisible

Light has to hit your retinas in order for you to process what you're seeing as an image. If light is doing all it can to avoid you, it will miss your retinas, and you will be rendered effectively blind. The only way around this would be to reduce yourself to a floating pair of retinas, which might be noticed by some observant passersby.


There are many more superpowers and more problems with them, but I'll leave you with what I think would be my choice of super power: the ability to summon any animal at will. Want a cat? Cat. Want to put a badger in the car that just cut you off? You can. Want to go on vacation with your friend?
Done.

I put about ten seconds of thought into that last paragraph at around 4 am, but I'm keeping it in. Take it with a grain of salt.


Cheers,

   - Scott





Email subscription (one per post):


tinyletter.com/scottsieke

Thursday, February 4, 2016

What Are Coffee Naps?

I recently learned something beautiful. I personally enjoy a fairly irregular sleep schedule, and as a result I'm often tired at inconvenient times.

I'm an avowed coffee addict, but the coffee only goes so far. I could nap, but I don't like taking full-fledged naps in the middle of the day.

The solution I landed on was something called a coffee nap.



If you like videos, here's one that explains it well:





Well, that video explained it really well. I don't have much more to add, and it doesn't seem right to summarize a video that's only 2 1/2 minutes long.


For those of you who don't like videos, or can't play them:

A coffee nap is accomplished by quickly drinking coffee (or some other form of caffeine), followed immediately by a short 20 minute nap. This method turns out to be more effective than either the nap or the coffee on its own. Why does this work? (It does work according to a few studies)

Part of the reason humans begin to feel tired is due to a chemical called adenosine. When this hormone is present in the brain, it binds to adenosine receptors that lie on the cell membrane between adjacent brain cells. When this binding happens across many receptors with millions of molecules, the effect is that you feel tired.

Caffeine, is structurally very similar to adenosine (see picture below), and it can also bind to adenosine receptors. When Caffeine is bonded to adenosine receptors, it physically blocks them them so that any adenosine present cannot bind (Here's some science for nerds). By blocking the adenosine receptor, you 'trick' your brain into not getting as tired. 


Image: ClockworkSoul


The problem with caffeine is that it cannot "kick out" adenosine that is already bound to receptors, so caffeine is limited in its effect. Here's where the nap comes in. Napping naturally clears adenosine out of adenosine receptors. I tried to figure out exactly why this happens, but the science here gets really complicated really fast. Here's a good paper talking about the basics of adenosine regulation of sleep. Suffice it to say that over the course of a 20 minute nap adenosine receptors become available as adenosine concentration decreases.

The process of getting the sweet, sweet caffeine from your stomach to your bloodstream takes about 20 minutes from the time you drink the coffee. You might notice a theme of 20 minutes starting to take form. If you drink coffee, then follow it with a 20 minute nap, the adenosine levels decrease, the receptors become available, and the caffeine enters from the bloodstream, enabling it to bind to a large number of empty adenosine receptors, far more than if the pesky adenosine was still present. This method is much more effective than naps or caffeine alone at achieving the goal of getting as many adenosine receptors bound to caffeine as possible.

Enjoy your scientifically-aided wakefulness!



Cheers,

    - Scott





Email subscription (one per post):


 tinyletter.com/scottsieke