The First Apocalypse Friday

Today, Friday, means freedom from work and school (except today; it's spring break for me). Sometimes, it's just so amazing that you couldn't even dream of the world ending today. So, to make sure you don't do anything too crazy (or to ruin your Friday, evil me), check in on how the world could actually cease to exist tomorrow.

Recently, there's been a lot of talk about the supervolcano in Yellowstone Park. Does it exist? Will it explode? How bad will the eruption be? 

Let's be clear, there isn't a clear volcano at Yellowstone. The volcano you always think of is a composite volcano, which looks like a mountain with magma. However, if you look at Yellowstone, there isn't a clear hump.

The reason is that this volcano is not obvious is because it has exploded before, most recently 640,000 years ago. When a volcano erupts violently, the roof of the magma chamber (the supply of magma for the volcano) collapses. This makes the entire mountain sink down to form a crater, or more specifcally, a caldera. The process is shown by this diagram of Mount Mazama, Oregon:

So the volcano does exist. Now, let's find out if this volcano will erupt. The tern "supervolcano" alone worries everyone, including scientists. They are now measuring the Yellowstone caldera, which is rising 

and falling. Surprisingly, between 2004 and 2008, it rose at a rate of 3 inches per year: the fastest it has ever risen in recorded history. In addition, the volcano is 1,000 years overdue for a supereruption. Finally, animals are fleeing the area due to growing seismic activity.

Is it the end?

No. In 2009, it stopped rising as quickly, and in Janurary 2010, it was offically declared that the caldera had slowed to its normal rate of rising. The "overdue" evidence doesn't actually exist. Instead, it was a hoax created by the press. As for the animals, it's part of migration and is nothing out of the ordinary.

Sorry for scaring you, but thanks for watching! Make sure to comment below! I may not see you for a while becuase of spring break, but after that, I'm going to try to make the blog a daily thing.

Until next time,

Ben's jamin'

Benjamin

P.S. Make sure you check out John's math blog at http://johncooksmathblog.blogspot.com.

Science: Math edition

Hello scientists!

Again, I'm sorry for not posting in a while. At home we've had many technical difficulties. At any rate, here's the post you've been waiting for.

Science and math go hand in hand most of the time, but especially in today's blog entry. We're going to talk about aliens! However, we can't just shout out that they exist because of blurry photographs or UFO sightings. We can use an equation to find out the probabibilty that they exist in the galaxy.

The mentioned equation is called the Drake equation, and it goes something like this:

There are a lot of variables here, as there should be. After all, finding extraterrestials is not an easy task. Here's a key:

N=the number of civilizations that we can communicate with by radio*

R*=the average rate of star rate formation in the galaxy

fp=the fraction of stars in our galaxies that have planets

ne=the fraction of those planets that can support life

fl=the fraction of life-supporting planets that actually have life**

fi=the fraction of life-containing planets that have intelligent life

fc=the fraction of those civilizations that release clues of its existence into space (such as radio waves)

L=the length of time those signals last

Once you figure out all those variables, you multiply them all together. Their product is the probability of other intelligent life in our galaxy.

So, what are these values? Let's start with R. There is usually about 1 star formed per year in the Milky Way, although this is sometimes considered on the conservative side.

fp is next. Out of 100 average stars, 20-50 will have planets. This means that fp is between .2-.5 .

ne is actually higher than what you expect, or at least higher than what I expected. Every star that has planets usually have between 1-5 planets that can support life, so ne is 1-5.

After this, scientists view the Drake equation as not very useful. After all, we don't know if there is alien life, so we can't figure out fl or any of the variables after that. They are also very hard to estimate. However, scientists have figured that if a planet can support life, life will somehow begin there. Therefore fl is 100%, or 1.

Scientists also assume that this life will evolve into intelligent life if given enough time, so fi is also 100%, or 1.

Interstellar communication is not an easy feat, however, so 100 given intelligent civilizations will probably have 10-20 that communicate through space. This means that fc is 10-20%, or .1-.2 .

Lastly, there is L. It is assumed that from the start of the civilization's communication, it will continue to communicate through space until it becomes extinct. This a large range. It's existence will probably occur anywhere from 1,000 to 100 million years after they begin to communicate. This means that L is 1,000 - 100,000,000.

Although some of them are estimates, we still have our numbers! Let's plug them into our equation.

Multiplying the lowest numbers possible, the equation tells us that we are the only ones in the galaxy, and probably the only ones in the observable universe.

However, the highest possible numbers provide a more optimistic answer. It states that are 36.4 million other civilizations in the galaxy! So yes, we come to the incredibly satisfying answer of there being 0 to 36,400,000 other species in the galaxy. Doesn't exactly improve our knowledge. Oh well.

Thanks for reading! Make sure to comment below! Next time, I'll introduce you to a new tradition for the blog, so stay tuned!

Until next time,

Ben's jamin'

Benjamin

P.S. Make sure you check out John's math blog at http://johncooksmathblog.blogspot.com.

*We have to communicate with these civilizations. If we can't, it doesn't matter if they exist or not.

**Just because planets can have life doesn't mean it has to.

The Misfit Planet

Hello, scientists!

In 2006, a dreadful thing happened. One of our planets, specifically Pluto, was demoted to a dwarf planet before it had time to complete one orbit since its discovery. Why would anyone do this? Are scientists really this cold-hearted? The answer may brighten your moods about Pluto, but it may make you sad about other things.

First of all, let's define a planet. The Greeks had the best definition: if moves across the sky and was bright, it was a planet. However, this also included the Sun and the Moon, and excluded Earth. Today, we have a more accurate model, with the Moon orbiting Earth orbiting the Sun. Today's description of a planet is:

1) It orbits around the Sun,

2) it has enough mass to pull itself into a spherical shape, and

3) has cleared its orbit around the Sun. (Nothing else is its path.)

So what's wrong with Pluto? It actually hasn't cleared its path. The exact criterion is that it can't be affected by gravity by another thing, and it has to have the majority of its mass in its orbital path. This is cool, but Pluto is in Kuiper Belt, which is a larger version of the asteroid belt that is located behind Neptune's orbit. Therefore, all the space debris makes it impossible for Pluto to compete, and it only makes up of .07% of the mass on its orbital path. Also, Pluto's moon, Chiron, had gravitational influence on Pluto, so the little planet had to go.

Although you may be mad at astronomers, don't be. When the International Astronomical Union met to make the faithful decision, only 5% of the scientists voted, almost none wanting to be guilty to demote Pluto. However, votes were cast, leaving Pluto to make new friends with the four other dwarf planets: Eris (which played a large factor in the demotion of the planet), Ceres (which actually followed Pluto's fate about a century before), Haumea, and Makemake. So don't think scientists abandoned Pluto. They put it a place where better belongs.

That's all for now! Make sure to comment in the comment section below. Make sure to check in later!

Until next time,

Ben's jamin'

Benjamin

P.S. Make sure you check out John's math blog at http://johncooksmathblog.blogspot.com.