Friday, December 28, 2018

How Many Years Have There Been?



I recently got nerd-sniped (exposed to an interesting question that ‘took over’ my thinking for a while) by the question “How many years have there been anyway?”




Heading into the New Year, the first answer that comes to mind is “2,019,” but this is one of the few we can eliminate right off the bat. There have been 2,019 years since Jesus of Nazareth was 4-6 years old. This method of counting up the years was begun in 525 by a Christian Monk named Dionysius Exiguus, but we know there were years before that, so 2,019 years is not our answer.

If you ask people from around the world you’ll get answers ranging from 13 (Mayan Long Count), 227 (French Republican Calendar), 1397 (Kurds and Afghans), 1440 (Islamic), 1940 (Indian Civil Calendar), 4716 (Chinese year according to an online converter), 5779 (Hebrew calendar) – or if you ask your computer it’ll say “1546300800” (unix).

There are groups that think we ought to base the year system on something that acts as a common heritage to all humans. Italian scientist, geologist, and field-founding badass Cesare Emiliani created an idea called the Holocene Calendar that would add 10,000 years to the current Julian date, making the upcoming year 12,019. Moving the ‘year 0’ to 10(ish) millennia ago acknowledges a large part of human history and eliminates the need to count backward when looking at cultures like the Romans, Norte Chico, Indus River Valley civilizations, or Egyptians. This is an interesting place to start a calendar, but does nothing to further our quest for an answer to our question.

The next method I thought of was counting the number of years since the very beginning. The universe formed about 13.8 billion years ago, so let’s see how that answer fits. One year (roughly) measures how many times the planet Earth has gone around the star Sol, so it doesn’t really make sense to say that there have been 13.8 billion years.* The Earth hasn’t been around for quite that long.

The universe's baby photo


<sidenote> Futuristic societies are often imagined to measure their time in years even though they have either left the planet Earth long ago, or never knew of Earth at all. An Earth-year in that context seems like a really poor choice of timekeeping unit. </sidenote>

Looking at the Earth, then – that has been around for about 4.543 billion years. This is the first answer to the question that fits. Let’s go ahead and make our math teachers proud and circle our answer:

At this point I thought I was done, but then another question started to bother me: if we consider a year to be the time it takes for a particular ball of rock to float around a particular ball of gas one time, 4,543,000,000 is looking good, but if we consider a year as a concept devised by human beings, then that number is far too large.

Humans have been around for the past 300,000 years or so, and they have probably kept at least a crude track of the handful of years they are alive through all of it, so our next answer that fits the question is:
If you want to get really pedantic, and trust me – I do – then you can consider when we started calling this shifting of seasons and shadows a “year.” The word “year” goes all the way back to Proto-Indo-European language family, believed to have been spoken from about 4500 BCE to 2500 BCE.  This word “year” has alternatively been spelled “gear,” “gar,” “yar,” etc… in different languages throughout the years, but has stayed remarkably similar for millennia. So our next number answers the question: “how long have we been calling this phenomenon a “year?”
For our next answer we’re asking how many years have been lived by humans? If you ask me and Paul Manafort how our year has been, you’ll get two very different answers… so how many years have been lived by individual humans? The Population Reference Bureau has a bizarrely precise 'estimate' of the human population at 108,470,690,115, and each of them lived through about 40 years on average.** That means that humans have cumulatively seen about 4.3 trillion years go by – in other words, if each human lived one at a time, we’d have seen the universe go by more than thirty times. This is another answer to our question:
Until now I’ve only been considering Earth years, but when someone wants to know how long it takes Mercury to go around the sun, they ask “how long is a year on Mercury?” So if we ask “how many lengths of time are the ‘year’ for a particular planet (which is another way of asking how many planets there are), we can get yet another answer.

There are a few a few different ways we can find exoplanets. To try to find out how many planets there are we can look at the the data. The Kepler and K2 missions have been hunting planets to help us find out how many stars have planets, and if they do, how many. It turns out, that our solar system is probably about average. Taking a look at the number of stars in the Milky Way and figuring on an average of 5 planets/star, we see that there are about a trillion planets in our galaxy (a safe estimate).

With 100 billion galaxies, each with a trillion planets, it stars getting easier to just count the zeros after the number rather try to say the number.
My final number for “How many years are there?” is the number of planets, each with its own unique year:
Written out: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Cheers,

    -Scott

*An amount of time equal to 13.8 billion years has elapsed, but we are counting the number of years, not counting how much time has passed in units of years. A "year" doesn't make any sense if the planet Earth isn't orbiting the Sun.

** There is an oft-quoted statistic that people used to die by age forty, but that is an average, not a maximum. Socrates, Ben Franklin and Saint Anthony were not freaks who managed to double the normal lifespan and live to see 80, but just regular old people. The 35-40 life expectancy figure includes a large infant mortality rate – if you lived past 5, you could expect to see 60.


Email list:

tinyletter.com/scottsieke

Thursday, March 16, 2017

A Story About A Very Important Human

Image: The Guardian


Vasili Arkhipov was arguably one of the most important people in human history; not because he was a great political leader, or extremely influential, but for three reasons, two of which were outside of his control. First: he was in the right place at the right time. Second: humans had recently achieved the capacity to erase the future of the species, and third: he made a choice. That choice is what I'll talk about today.

To create some context, Arkhipov lived during a time shortly after the invention of the nuclear bomb in the 1940's, and a number of nations had developed operational nuclear warheads - the USSR and the United States among them. The political climate between these nations was... a bit tense. The nations would have really liked to go to war with each other, but both heads of state were luckily rational enough to understand the reality that nuclear war is to be avoided at nearly all cost. This is a concept, called Mutually Assured Destruction,- states that if one nation launched a nuclear warhead, the other would be able to retaliate, so neither wanted to take the first shot.

Arkhipov's choice took place during the Cold War, specifically during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In October of 1962, Arkhipov was second-in-command of USSR Submarine B-59. He had also achieved the rank of flotilla commander by this time.

On Oct. 27th, there had been no contact between Moscow and the B-59 for several days. Nearby, the American Navy began dropping depth charges to coax the submarine to surface so they could identify it, despite being in international waters. Not knowing whether war had broken out between the USSR and the US, the officers on the submarine has to decide on a course of action.

Usually in this situation, the decision to launch a nuclear warhead requires the consent of the captain and the political officer. Captain Savitsky and the political officer, Ivan Maslennikov, wanted to launch a nuclear warhead, but because of Arkhipov's position as the flotilla commander, he was also required to agree to a launch. Of the three decision-makers on board the B-59 that day, only Arkhipov was against the launch, and so a launch did not occur.

Were the crew to decide to launch an attack against the United States, we almost certainly would have retaliated and nuclear war would have broken out between the two heavily-armed superpowers, and we would be living (or not) in a very different world today.



Cheers,

   - Scott


Email list (one email per post, never more):

 tinyletter.com/scottsieke 

Monday, February 27, 2017

Potpourri

Hello!

There are a lot of topic I run across that I can't write a whole worthwhile blog post about, but I'd still like to share these little tidbits with you, so I'll try to assemble a few of those here.


Tidbit 1:

There is a bright red star in the constellation Scorpio called "Antares." It is a fascinating star that is 883 times larger than our star by diameter, meaning that if it were in our solar system, it would envelop all four rocky planets.

The fact that it is so red, coupled with the fact that the star is usually visible for most of the year created confusion because astronomers would often mistake the star for Mars, which eventually led to its name:

ant... = not
...ares = Mars

We called the star "not Mars."


Tidbit 2:

I was curious what the name for those coffee cup wraps was, so I looked it up. On the Wikipedia page, I found a whopping 7 "aka's" in the Wikipedia page. One of them was the term "zarf." A zarf is an ornate metal device made to hold a coffee cup. Here is one from the British Museum:

Image: britishmuseum.org

I think I'm going to call those coffee sleeves "zarfs" from now on.

Tidbit 3:

I heard a story about the early space mission Aurora 7, launched with Scott Carpenter inside on May 24th, 1962. The mission went mostly to plan, except for one variable the folks on the ground couldn't control: Scott. Transfixed by the view from the window, Carpenter used attitude control to point the capsule at things he was interested in seeing, and as a result landed 250 miles off course - a fact NASA was not pleased about.

The astronauts got to name their own missions, and Scott Carpenter decided to call his "Aurora." Now, he grew up in Boulder at Aurora and 7th, so many Boulderites (including me) assumed it was a reference to his street corner until I saw the video below. It turns out it was because his orbit would enable him to see the aurora borealis for the first time.


Tidbit 4:

Image: 99percentinvisible.org - check them out if you haven't yet!

You have almost certainly seen these. Paths where people simple cut the corner and trample the grass to get where they are going. As many hours as someone might put into designing walkways in parks or campuses, many a time, people will take the way that best suits them. These paths actually have a name - desire paths. There's even a subreddit for it.



Fairly appropriate, I'd say

Tidbit 5:

Brothers and sisters together are called "siblings," but did you know that you can refer to your nieces and nephews together as your "niblings?" Also - your brother or sister can be called your 0th cousin.

More:


Tidbit 6:

Image: Wikimedia Commons


The tongue twister "She sells sea shells sitting by the seashore" refers to a real person - Mary Anning. Anning lived in England in the early 19th century and was a paleontologist, fossil collector and dealer. Among other accomplishments she was the first to discover complete plesiosaur and ichthyosaur fossils.

Tidbit 7:

If you happen to have a kidney stone the solution for passing it might be in an unexpected place: Frontierland at the Disney World Resort in Orlando. According to this study, kidney stones are passed 63.9% of the time after riding the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad.


Image: AmaryllisGardener


A flight to Orlando and a ticket to Disney World:

Cheaper than some healthcare.

I really suggest reading that paper through. It's full of little gems like this one:


Many people in the United States probably live within a few hours’ drive of an amusement park containing a roller coaster with features capable of dislodging calyceal renal calculi.

Here's a video of the researcher describing his work: 




I love science.

Cheers,

   - Scott


Email list (one per post):


Tuesday, January 3, 2017

The Erdős-Bacon Number

A lot of you will be familiar with the Bacon number. It's a play on the "six degrees of separation" concept that states that everyone in the world is six or fewer degrees separated from anyone else, one degree being someone you personally know.


Image: Wikimedia Commons

This graphic shows a minimum spanning tree, which is not what I'm talking about, but I'll take the heat from all the angry graph theorists. 

Someone's 'Bacon number' is this concept played out specifically with Kevin Bacon. Film buffs might play a game trying to link actors to Bacon in as few shared movies as possible.

To give an example, my Bacon number is 4. One of my cousins went to a doctor that had also worked on Micheal Jordan, who appeared in this commercial with Kevin Bacon:



So from me to my cousin (1), to the doctor (2), to Michael (3), to Kevin, there are 4 steps. (I also have a Bacon number of 4 via a family friend, Cozi Zuehlsdorff, Christopher de Stefano to Kevin)

Note: another definition of the Bacon number is that one must use film credits rather than personal connections, and it's this definition we will be using later on.

<sidenote>
Facebook generates a lot of data, and decided to calculate the average connectivity of its users: 3.57 degrees
</sidenote>


Image: Topsy Kretts


Paul ErdÅ‘s

Another similar number exists, and that is the ErdÅ‘s number. Paul ErdÅ‘s was an unusually prolific mathematician and collaborated with a huge number of scientists during his career. Many academics calculate their "ErdÅ‘s number," which is calculated in a similar fashion as the Bacon Number, but rather than personal connection, you would use academic papers that share the authors' name.

Using these two numbers, you can calculate someone's ErdÅ‘s-Bacon number, which is the sum of the two numbers. Naturally, this requires both being credited in at least one film as well as author an academic paper, something very few people have done.

A number of famous names have low ErdÅ‘s-Bacon Numbers:


Richard Feynmann appeared in the film Anti-Clock, which gives him a Bacon number of 3, and an ErdÅ‘s number of 3 gives him an EBN of 6.
 Carl Sagan had an EBN of 6 as well.
The scientist Stephen Hawking actually has a lower Bacon number (2) than an ErdÅ‘s number (4), for an ENB of 6.
Natalie Portman, as well as the Big Bang Theory actress Mayim Bialik, have both published papers, giving them ErdÅ‘s numbers of 5. Both have Bacon numbers of 2, giving both women an EBN of 7.
Perhaps the lowest ErdÅ‘s Bacon Number belongs to a man named Albert A Chan. He acted alongside Bacon in Patriot Day, giving him a Bacon number of 1, and has published work that achieves an ErdÅ‘s number of 3, giving him the lowest ErdÅ‘s-Bacon Number at 4.

Another quick note on interdisciplinary achievement - only one person in history has ever received both an Oscar and a Superbowl Ring - film producer and businessman Steve Tisch. Tisch, as the Executive Vice President of the New York Giants, received Superbowl championship rings for the 2007 and 2011 seasons, as well as an Oscar for producing Forrest Gump.


Cheers,

    - Scott


Email subscription, one per post:

 tinyletter.com/scottsieke

Friday, November 25, 2016

Everest Fever

Hello all! 
  
I recently read Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer, and came down with a bit of Everest fever. 
  
Hung these bad boys up in my room
  
Rather letting the dream of climbing the darn thing slowly start to take hold in my mind, or fantasizing about flying into Nepal and landing at one of the sketchiest airports in the world (see video below), my Everest fever manifested itself by driving me to share some tidbits and facts about mountains with all you fine people.
   
  
Landing at the Lukla airport 


The first question I'll dive into is "How do we measure the tallest Mountain?" When measured as 'height above sea level,' Everest gets the #1 spot, but Everest is not the tallest mountain when measured from base to peak. That honor belongs to Mauna Kea in Hawaii.


Measured from base to peak, Mauna Kea is much taller than Everest

On top of the 'Mauna Kea,' there is a suite of telescopes. My two personal favorites are the Keck binocular telescopes and the Subaru telescope (the car company and the telescope are both named for the Pleiades, known as "Subaru" in Japan). Pretty cool. 



Image: T. Wynne/JPL

The Keck Telescope

Image: Denys

The Subaru Telescope


I also think that Chimborazo is worth mentioning here. An argument could be made that Chimborazo is the 'highest' because it is the farthest point from the center of the earth. Because the Earth is not quite solid, and it's rotating, Earth is not spherical; the middle bulges out by several kilometers. Chimborazo, being a tall mountain situated near the equator means it gets an extra boost, making this peak the farthest you can get from the center of the Earth. 



Image: David Torres Costales

Chimborazo
  
Image: Maphill.com


Chimborazo is located near the Equator

  
In thinking about mountains, I began thinking about how mountains are measured, and how peaks are defined. I have heard of are so-called twin peaks, such as Greys and Torreys, two nearby 14ers (peaks over 14,000') here in Colorado, but what is the cutoff point between two distinct peaks and say a north and south summit of the same peak? 
  
This brings me to the idea of "prominence." Prominence is loosely "how far the mountain sticks up from it's surroundings."

Prominence is defined as "the vertical distance between the summit and the lowest contour line that does not also include a higher peak"

Image: Cmglee

In the image above, we are looking at three mountains with differing heights and levels of prominence. The dashed horizontal lines in the image above are contour lines. Looking at the middle peak, we can see that any lower contour line would also have to include the peak on the right. Likewise, for the peak on the right, any lower contour  line would also need to include the peak on the left. The highest peak's contour line goes right down to the coastline because no other contour line includes a higher peak, giving it the most prominence.

This creates a problem. Everest has a North and a South Summit, but would these summits qualify for the worlds first and second tallest mountains? What's to keep several rocky outcrops near the summit of Everest from being called the world's ten tallest peaks? It turns out there is no set minimum to decide on what constitutes a separate peak, but I was able to dig up something called the 'Colorado Rule,' which holds to a minimum of 300' of prominence to be called a separate peak. For reference, that makes the Maroon Bells two summits of the same peak:

Image: USDA


Moving away from mountains in general, and on to Everest Itself, I'd like to talk next about the Khumbu Icefall. This is a section of the southern route up Everest, and it is one of the more dangerous sections of the climb. All those photos you see of climbers walking over ladders are from the Khumbu Icefall:


Image: Pem Dorjee Sherpa

Situated just above base camp, the icefall is the end of the Khumbu Glacier. Pieces of ice the size of houses are moving down the icefall, and shifting at the rate of meters per day, sometimes coming loose and tumbling down the glacier. Here is a link to beautiful timelaspe showing how much the icefall moves over the course of many hours:

 https://vimeo.com/33809028 

Everest being at the elevation it is, has some interesting properties. Above 8,000 meters, or the so-called "Death Zone," you need supplemental oxygen (unless you're a badass), but the thin air has another interesting property: water boils at relatively low temperatures at different points along the route from the nearby cities to base camp and beyond:





Lastly, I'll talk about how Everest got its name. George Everest, (pronounced with a long 'e') was a surveyor general and was given the task of mapping the Indian subcontinent. After he was in a different job, a peak appearing on one of the maps produced ("peak 15" on the map) was found to be the world's highest. His successor, Andrew Scott Waugh, suggested the name "Everest" be applied to the mountain, given the lack of a local name for the peak. Interestingly, Everest never even saw Peak XV, later known as Everest.



Image: Wikimedia Commons


Cheers,
   
     - Scott


Get email reminders when I publish a new blog (I write them, and it's never spam):