Dr. Dragon Issue #11

DR. DRAGON HSMSE’S MATH, SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE MAGAZINE

Robots Replacing Humans Women in Science • Prions • The Uncertainty Principle • And much More!

1

Dear Readers, Welcome to our Spring 2017 issue! This is our eleventh magazine and so much has changed since the beginning.

Over the past five years, all our members have continu ously enhanced their skills and cultivated their passion ate learning of the STEM fields through writing. It was wonderful to see my team work hard to bring this issue to life. This year, we added a new feature to our magazine, called Dear Dr. Dragon. Students at HSMSE submit ques tions they have regarding the science fields through our website and they are answered by our very own Dr Dragon!

I would like to give much thanks to our cherished advisor, Mr. Choi, who kept us steady and strong throughout our journey and to the PTA for sponsoring our magazine. I hope you enjoy reading our articles.

Afsana Rahman, President

STAFF PRESIDENT

DESIGNER IN CHIEF

VICE-PRESIDENT

EDITOR IN CHIEF

TREASURER

EDITORS

AFSANA RAHMAN CARIN QUEENER

MAISY HOFFMAN

MAISY HOFFMAN

MIA AKHTER NATHAN ELLIS MIN YI LIN JASPER STEDMAN

FACULTY ADVISOR

SPECIAL THANKS

JUSTIN SINANAN

SECRETARY RONALD CHOI 2 1

FATEMA BEGUM

HSMSE PTA

WRITERS

MIA AKHTER NATHAN ELLIS SPENCER HA JADA HEREDIA MAISY HOFFMAN MIN YI LIN SYEDA MAHAJABIN AIDAN MALEY CARIN QUEENER AFSANA RAHMAN JASPER STEDMAN

04

05

THE DEBATE OF Tau Vs. PI MAISY HOFFMAN

Deadly Women PrOTEINS: PRIONS in Science SPENCER HA CARIN QUEENER

11

13

15

METALLIC HYDROGEN

EM DRIVE CONTROVERSY

ORIGINS OF THE MOON

17

19

21

UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

THE RISE OF ROBOTS

FINGERPRINT HACKING

AIDAN MALEY

NATHAN ELLIS

23

JASPER STEDMAN

MIN YI LIN

CONSPIRACY THEORIES MIA AKHTER

07

AFSANA RAHMAN

JADA HEREDIA

GMO 24 SYEDA MAHAJABIN

3 2

Dear Dr. Dragon,

At the end of a day, the sun creates long shadows. I have noticed that when I raise my hand, my shadow moves faster than my actual arm. If my arm were to move at the speed of light is it possible for my arm to move faster?

Thanks, Robert Oppenheimer Dear Robert, The key to answering this question is first to understand what a shadow really is. According to The Merriam Webster Dictionary a shadow is defined as, “a dark shape that appears on a surface when someone or something moves between the surface and a source of light.” If someone were to observe a shadow, they would notice how the object could be smaller than the shadow casted. Yet, the shadow would still make the exact same actions and movements as the object in the same amount of time. (This will be important to remember for later.)

A shadow, in other words, is essentially the absence of light and information. A basic rule in the universe is information cannot travel faster than c, the speed of light (3*108m/s ). ​

However, a shadow is the absence of information, and therefore can travel faster than c.

Margaret Wertheim, a contributor to the New York Times and writer of many books such as Physics on the Fringe: Smoke Rings, Circlons and Alternative Theories of Everything, gives a great example. “The key to our trick,” she explains, “is to rotate the klieg [a very powerful light].

As the light turns, the shadow sweeps across the sky. At a great enough distance from the source, our shadow bat will go so fast it will exceed the speed of light.” (1) Your question is very similar to the scenario created

by Margaret Wertheim. Your arm is like the strip of paper and the sun is the light source. Although your arm is moving from one place to another, the shadow is moving a longer distance in the same amount of time which means it is going faster. Anything with mass, like the human arm, cannot travel at the speed of light. Even if a person could move their arm at c, since the shadow carries no information, it could still move faster than c and our magical faster-than-light arm.

Till next time, Dr. Dragon Wertheim, Margaret. “The Shadow Goes.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 2007. Web. 25 Ma1n+ 2016.

If you would like to submit a question please visit this link: goo.gl/p288R9

4 3

Tau vs. pi

You have probably heard of pi (π). It is, after all, the ever-amazing circle constant that never ends or repeats.

But you have likely never heard of tau. Tau (τ) is a singular symbol representing the value of pi times two; τ = 2π. In fact, very few know of tau, mathematicians included. Only recently, within the past decade, have many notable mathematicians taken a side in the debate over tau and pi.

The dispute between these two transcendental numbers mainly stemmed from an article written by Bob Palais entitled, “π Is Wrong!” Palais argued that while pi as a number was not wrong in value, it was wrong in application; it is an illogical number to use. He further argued that tau should be implemented far more often in mathematics, and that tau should replace pi’s significance in mathematical communities and studies. Over the years since, mathematicians have looked closer into this invalidation of pi, and have formed opinions around the matter.

So, what is tau? Tau, like pi, is a circle constant, meaning that the radius of any given circle multiplied by tau is the hypothetical circle’s circumference. Tau not only has applications in geometric figures, but it plays a central role in trigonometry. Namely, radians are made far easier with tau rather than pi. Radians are angles, as a part of a circle, in terms of a circle constant. One full turn, or 360º, is 2π in radians. But with tau, one full turn is simply one τ. That makes far more logical sense; one circle should be represented by one symbol. Similarly, the angle measurement 90º, which is 1/4 of a full turn, should not be π/2. It should instead be τ/4, because

this is more logical, and allows conversions between radians and degrees to be easier. Tau also holds a significant reputation throughout other subjects within math, including fascinating equations in calculus, such as those of the Riemann Zeta function, Fourier transformation, Euler’s identity, Gaussian distribution and the Nth Root of Unity. All of these valuable equations were found to have a common thread, the number 2π. When replaced with tau, each of these equations are simplified, and made far easier to work with.

In general, it has been found that using tau makes math more enjoyable, simple, and logical. Why, then, has tau not been implemented into standard mathematics even given all its benefits as a constant? Pi, first estimated thousands of years ago by the Guptas, has an illustrious past that has built up over a long period of time to become an almost worshipped symbol. Pi’s history is quite significant and should certainly be recognized globally as one of the greatest mathematical discoveries of all time. However, to progress further in the mathematical realm, tau should be implemented in mathematics rather than pi, because it has so many more logical applications. Maybe it is time we looked closer at the other, obscured numbers out there.

- Maisy Hoffman Bartholomew, Randyn C. “Let’s Use Tau- It’s Easier Than Pi.” Scientific American. 25 June 2014. Web. Hartl, Michael. “The Tau Manifesto.” The Tau Manifesto, 28 June 2010. Web. <https://www.tauday.com/ tau-manifesto>.

C = 2π(R ) C = τ(R )

5 4

Prions

It is late 2012. A Texan man begins to show symptoms of depression, anxiety, hallucination and delusion. He is taken to the local hospital where he is treated for his symptoms. However, he continues to deteriorate as doctors frantically search for a possible explanation of the illness. No cure could be found though and after 18 months, he dies of sepsis following an episode of pneumonia.

ed protein causes other proteins to misfold. This means that prions can replicate without any DNA, RNA or any of the other cellular processes we see in bacterias and viruses. It is also the reason why prions have such a high mortality rate once infected; doctors simply do not understand how to combat an illness that is just made of proteins. This is made worse by the fact that prions spread extraordinarily quickly.

A brain autopsy showed that the man was infected years before death.

Eating raw meat from a cow that has been affected with a prion disease can lead to a human infection. Even infected brains that have been sitting in formaldehyde for decades can still transmit the disease. It is not possible to destroy prions through boiling, alcohol, acid or even radiation. The disease is so dangerous that all medical students must take special precautions when studying brains. However, one of the reasons why it is taking so long to find treatment for prion diseases is because they are so elusive and blend in with other proteins.

Imagine an illness that has no cures, a high mortality rate, and is easily spread between both man and animal. This is a prion, a disease which is highly dangerous to all mammals. Prions are not the typical ordinary bacteria or virus; they are actually everyday proteins that your body uses to enable bodily processes. In fact, there are prion proteins in every person on Earth. There is a gene in each of us that codes for this protein. However, most people do not develop the neurological diseases associated with prions. The reason lies in the fact that a person must have a mutation that allows this protein to misfold and not carry out its function. This is the start of diseases like Fatal Familial Insomnia or the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. As time passes, this misfold-

6 5

The immune system will not recognize the presence of the mutation and thus would allow the disease to grow within the body.

First found in sheep in the 1730s, the disease was seen to degrade the nervous system and cause extreme coordination loss and dizziness. However, this illness, known as scrapie, soon fell under the radar as human were not yet affected. This all changed in the 1950s when the first major discovery of prions in humans were made in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Scientists would call this terrifying new disease, Kuro, and its connections with scrapie intrigued researchers. It was not until 1982 that Dr. Stanley B. Prusiner found the protein-only prion that caused kuro. Since then, numerous neurodegenerative disorders were found to be associated with prions.

beef in your next hamburger may be infected even if the cow has died long ago.

The severity of prions and the rush to contain the infection could be seen during the last three decades.

Even though the road may look bleak with prions, scientists are slowly understanding the diseases and the mutations that cause prion proteins to misfold. With the help of more funding, researchers may even be on the right track to an eventual cure. However, until then, humanity must attempt to control and contain the infections of prions.

In the year 2000, 108,000 cows were infected and thousands were killed in an attempt to reduce human exposure. The disease that these cows were affected with has since been called mad cow disease. Unfortunately, these attempts were not enough.

In April 2005, 155 British residents died as a result of contaminated beef. Since there is a long incubation period however, it is almost certain that other people would have contracted the infection as well, spreading it to other parts of the world. Furthermore, because prion proteins are so resilient, there is a chance that the

Fortunately, there are theories on how prion diseases may be cured in the future. Two of these theories are with antibodies and gene silencing. Both of these options show promise in the lab, but have yet to see clinical trials yet. Antibodies especially have been shown to completely eliminate a variant of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in a petri dish. Unfortunately, any drugs or treatment will take years of further research to gain approval.

- Spencer Ha “Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD).” Proteins and Prions | UCSF Memory and Aging Center. University of Southern California, n.d. Web. 04 May 2017.

“Do Prions Exist?” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, Nov. 2000. Web. 04 May 2017.

“Prions.” Prions. Genetic Science Learning Center, n.d.

Web. 04 May 2017.

“What Are Prions?” What Are Prions? Prion Alliance, 2015. Web. 04 May 2017.

“What Are the Potential Treatments for Prions Disease?”

Prion Alliance, 4 Feb. 2014. Web. 04 May 2017

7 6

Who runs the stem world?NOT GIRLS (YET) As technology becomes increasingly prevalent in our lives, jobs in the STEM sector have grown exponentially over the past few years. In fact, by 2024, the computing field will have 1.1 million job openings, yet only 41% of them will be filled. One might think this statistic would have droves of young college students flooding Computer Science and Engineering programs, however this isn’t true—especially for women.

However, the cause of this discrepancy is unclear, and thus the solution is no simple matter. In elementary school there is almost no gap; boys and girls perform equally well in math and science. Interest at early ages is just about equal, with about two-thirds of fourth graders, male and female, stating an interest in science.

That is not to say that there is no problem.

With such a high demand for STEM skills, the lack of women in these valuable degrees is not only an equality issue, but also a resource issue — if not enough Americans fill these positions, other countries will overtake the US as the primary source for technological innovation.

develop their knowledge. Girls on the other hand are taught a “fixed mindset,” which means that when they succeed, they tend to believe their success is from their intelligence, not their work, which causes lack of confidence when faced with harder problems.

a young age, boys and girls Although women make up 57.4% At taught to view difficult of all college graduates, they are academic struggles differently. only comprise 20% of Boys are taught to have a “growth mindset” when dealengineering graduates. ing with problems, meaning that if they are struggling to solve a problem, they simply need to work harder to

8 7

This problem persists all the way into freshman year of college, when most STEM students must take Calculus 1. Known as a “weeder class,” calculus is notoriously difficult, and almost all of the 17% of women and 32% of men who as freshman intend to major in STEM must take it. According to a Colorado State study, roughly as many women as men leave Calculus 1 due to reasons such as low grades, major change, work overload, etc.

However, one reason, “lack of confidence,” was cited by women far more than their male counterparts. In fact, 50% more women leave calculus than men, leading researchers to believe that women are not less capable, just less confident.

This lack of confidence translates into a sense of unbelonging in the workforce, where despite diversity initiatives, it is harder to get a job as a women in STEM than as a man. 48% of black women and 47% of hispanic women report that they have been mistaken for custodial staff while on the job, and over 60% of women of all races report that they have to provide more evidence of competence to prove they belong in their jobs. This is clear evidence of bias, and probably explains why so many women drop out of the field even after they graduate. In fact, only 24% of employees in the STEM field are women, and many women report that their female bosses often give them a difficult time, feeling like the younger generation needs to struggle as they did.

Women also must walk the tightrope of being “feminine enough” to be seen as a good person, but aggressive enough to be taken seriously. According to a Harvard Business study, 34.1% of female scientists report that they feel pressure to fill traditionally feminine

roles, and more than half report that they experienced backlash when exhibiting stereotypically male actions, such as speaking out. Meg Urry, professor of physics and astronomy at Yale, noted that “American men can’t seem to appreciate a woman as a woman and as a scientist; it’s one or the other.” This forces women to feel as though they do not belong in their careers in STEM, because those around them cannot reconcile their intelligence with their gender.

However, these problems will not simply go away with time. women need stem and stem needs women.

To break down the gender prejudices that keep women and even young girls from feeling not masculine enough, not prepared enough, and even not smart enough, more women need to push their way to the top of the STEM field, where people of all genders will be forced to recognize that women too deserve a seat at the (periodic) table.

- Carin Queener Colorado State University. “Calculus I factors women out of STEM degrees.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 13 July 2016.

Cummins, Denise. “Why the STEM Gender Gap Is Overblown.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 17 Apr. 2015.

9 8

9

10

10 11

Metallic HYDROGEN The holy grail of high pressure physics Hydrogen is an invisible gas that makes up over 75% of our universe. It is the simplest element, consisting of a proton and an electron. Hydrogen is used frequently in the chemical production industry, and makes up many commonly used substances, such as hydrogen peroxide, ammonia, and of course, water.

Hydrogen does not exist in a solid state in nature, but at a temperature of -259.2°C it will become a solid.

In the twentieth century, scientists predicted that hydrogen could become a metallic substance at a sufficiently low temperature and high pressure. It would not only be a metal, but be a superconductor― a material that conducts electricity with zero electrical resistance.

The applications of superconductors are endless, and it would be a great help to society to have such a material.

Finally, 82 years after being predicted, Harvard physicist Isaac Silvera created the first sample of metallic hydrogen in his lab.

In 1933, physicists Eugene Wigner and Hillard Huntington proposed the idea that hydrogen could have metallic properties at low temperatures and high pressure, like a hydrogen diamond. However, they lacked the technology to test this hypothesis, as such cold temperatures and high pressure were difficult to obtain back then. Now, Isaac Silvera has created the first sample of metallic hydrogen by crushing a small amount of gaseous hydrogen between two diamonds in a chamber chilled to just above absolute zero. The diamonds increased the pressure on the hydrogen so much that it’s atomic structure changed to form that of a metal.

The applications of this substance are endless. Metallic hydrogen would theoretically be a superconductor at room temperature― all other superconductors only work at incredibly cold temperatures. Not only is this metal a superconductor, but it would be the most efficient and powerful rocket fuel we would have. It would burn without carbon dioxide emissions, and would have a far greater energy yield than conventional rocket fuel.

12 11

However, with most things that sound too good to be true, there are still issues with this discovery. Although we know that hydrogen would be a superconductor and a fantastic rocket fuel, people are skeptical whether it has actually been created or not. The photographs that exist of the substance show a small bead of a reflective material. Many scientists believe that this is not enough proof that metallic hydrogen had actually been created. In addition, others are questioning the purity of the substance photographed. There was nothing to suggest that the shiny beads were even hydrogen, as there was nothing monitoring the purity of it throughout the experiment. Lastly, the sample had reportedly disappeared in early February. According to Silvera, the diamonds holding the sample in place had cracked, and the substance was now gone. Several people speculate that the entire experiment might have been staged to get more funding and attention. Fortunately, all of these doubts are purely hypothetical. The sample might have been contaminated, or they might have faked the experiment, but those doubts are based on lack of knowledge, not knowledge that the experiment is incorrect.

As of April 2017, there is no proof that metallic hydrogen has not been created.

If the experiment was a success, and it is proven that metallic hydrogen has and still can be created, the next step will be to determine if it is stable at room temperature. Hypothetically, it will be. We will also determine how to efficiently create it without having to use two diamonds at -267°C just to create a 10 micron (1x10-5 meter) sample. Assuming we can successfully solve these two future problems, we will now have an extremely useful material that will change our entire lifestyle. Metallic hydrogen will be used in computers to make them incredibly fast, and in wires everywhere that will make transformers obsolete. It will even make our journey to Mars (and other worlds) much easier and cheaper.

- Aidan Maley MacDonald, Fiona. “It’s Real: Metallic Hydrogen Has Been Created For The First Time.”ScienceAlert. N.p., 26 Jan. 2017. Web. 04 May 2017.

Nelson, Bryan. “Scientists have created metallic hydrogen. Here’s how it could change the world.” MNN - Mother Nature Network. Mother Nature Network, 27 Jan.

13 12

EM DRIVE CONTROVERSY

Since the middle of the 20th century, we have been overcoming the immense challenges of space travel. One of the largest problems with space travel as we know it today is the innate paradox of rocket engines. Rocket engines need to burn an abundance of fuel, and fuel is extremely heavy. In order to carry the fuel, more engines are needed. These extra engines need more fuel, making the rocket even heavier, requiring more engines, and so on. Fuel is also extremely expensive, and this paradox is why it costs more than $20,000 of fuel to put just one kilogram into orbit.

One proposed solution to this problem is the theoretical EM Drive, or Electromagnetic Drive, which seems to produce thrust without needing to burn any fuel, eliminating the main problem with space travel.

What is an EM Drive?

For a device that is based on incredibly complex physics, the EM Drive has a surprisingly simple structure. It is a hollow copper cylinder that flares outward near the end. Inside is a microwave generator, which uses electricity to create a field of radiation bouncing between the wider and thinner ends of the cylinder.

When the microwaves hit each end, it produces thrust in the opposite direction, in accordance with Newtonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s laws of motion.

According to the deviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inventor, Roger Shawyer, the microwaves bouncing back and forth between the ends produces thrust in the direction of the wider end.

Inventor Robert Shawyer created the device in 1999, and his original experimentation showed that it produced about 326 millinewtons of thrust per kilowatt of power. This is a tiny amount of thrust, but much more than other high-efficiency thrusters, such as the Hall Thruster, which produces roughly 60 millinewtons per kilowatt. For reference, a propellantless thruster this powerful would reduce a trip to Mars from 9 months with conventional rockets to just 2 months, revolutionizing space travel forever.

14 13

Why is the EM Drive controversial?

The EM Drive has many issues that skeptics constantly refer to, splitting the scientific community into those who want to conduct more experiments and those who think it is a hopeless cause.

The first problem that immediately was attacked was that the EM Drive, quite frankly, appears to break physics.

According to traditional physics, a closed system shouldn’t be able to produce thrust in the way proposed. This is because, according to Newton’s third law, the force of the microwaves bouncing off the walls of the cavity should be canceled out by an equal and opposite force from the walls themselves. This should not produce thrust unless some microwaves are escaping, making it no longer a closed system. (A device that lets the microwaves leave is called a photon thruster, and it does work, but produces far less thrust than the EM Drive) A good analogy is trying to make a car move forward by pushing on the windshield from the driver’s seat. The EM Drive’s thrust seems to violate Newton’s third law and the conservation of momentum by producing energy in a closed system, like a perpetual motion machine.

The other reason the EM Drive has attracted skeptics is that experiments on EM Drives have been inconclusive. Many of the experiments are viewed with doubt because they had too many variables. For instance, the equipment used to measure thrust could have shown thrust because of air currents in the room, or heat from the microwaves deforming the engine. The amount of thrust measured is small enough that both of these could be possibilities, especially in air. A series of tests run in a vacuum chamber by NASA’s Eagleworks Laboratory in November of last year showed that thrust was produced, but only a tiny fraction of the thrust reported

by Shawyer. Only one test conducted by a Chinese research team in 2012 has produced anywhere near the amount of thrust Shawyer claimed to have achieved.

Additionally, the data is misleading from many tests.

Graphs presented by Shawyer claimed to have a strong linear correlation between the amount of electricity and thrust, but the data points were scattered all over the place, and the correlation was barely visible upon further inspection.

Despite the immense skepticism of the EM Drive, Roger Shawyer and other scientists are committed to trying

to prove the legitimacy of the EM Drive until all explanations are thrown out. In response to the widespread criticism of the Drive’s ability to produce thrust without breaking physics, Shawyer has developed a new theory to explain the thrust produced. Shawyer claims that the EM Drive is not truly a closed system. He has invoked pilot wave theory, an incredibly complex interpretation of quantum mechanics that was developed to get rid of quantum uncertainty, but hasn’t caught on. According to Shawyer, pilot wave theory proves that the ‘quantum vacuum’ —the lowest-energy state of quantum fields — is a malleable surface that the microwaves are pushing on. This makes the EM Drive more like an oar rowing through spacetime than a thruster. This would make the Drive an open system that does not break physics.

Pilot wave theory is, of course, highly speculative and there is disagreement over whether or not it is even remotely correct, let alone whether it allows the EM Drive to function.

How will we know if the EM Drive works?

The only way to know for sure whether or not the EM Drive works is to do extensive experiments to confirm the original claims. As mentioned earlier, there are a plethora of variables that could give false conclusions.

Until the influence all of these variables is eliminated, we can never know whether the effect is actually caused by the EM Drive. Additionally, the physics behind the EM Drive is still being heavily debated.

Theoretical physicists across the globe are hard at work improving pilot wave theory and related theories.

Depending on what these researchers discover, the EM Drive could be given a reasonable explanation that would help narrow the experiments. Until then, all scientists can do is continue to test this device.

- Jasper Stedman Popular Mechanics. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2017. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a24745/ science-behind-em-drive/ MacDonald, Fiona. “IT’s Official: NASA’s Peer-Reviewed EM Drive Paper Has Finally Been Published.” ScienceAlert. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2017. http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-nasa-s-peerreviewed-em-drive-paper-has-finally-been-published “Emdrive - Home.” Emdrive - Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

15 14

Origins of the moon Thirteen billion years ago, our universe was born. In a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, the universe transformed from a hot dense point to an expanse, doubling ninety times its original subatomic size. The inflation of the universe continued (and continues) to expand at a slower rate, with the formation of neutrons, protons, and electrons â&#x20AC;&#x2022; eventually leading up to the creation of large masses such as our galaxies and solar systems. How did the moon originate specifically in all of this? Many scientists believe that

16 15

in the earliest days of the solar system, a protoplanet around the size of Mars, named Theia collided with the Earth. The collision sent debris from both masses to hurl in orbit, in which the rubble eventually combined to form the moon. However, if that occurred, Theiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s debris in the moon would be clearly evident. Studies show that the lunar rock is compositionally and isotopically identical to the Earth. If thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the case, then what happened? Is the Theia collision substantially supported?

Where is the moon truly from?

There are many theories on how the Earth got its moon.

On January 9th’s Nature Geoscience, Israeli researchers Raluca Rufu, Oded Aharonson, and Hagai Perets from the Weizmann Institute argued that the notion of a single, giant impact is incorrect and proposed the multi-impact hypothesis. Though the multi-impact hypothesis was first put forward in 1989, scientists did not have the computer power to run simulations to test the theory. Rufu and her colleagues concluded that the Earth collided with dozens of minor impacts with objects, ranging from 1 to 10 percent of its mass. Each object ejected debris that became an orbiting disk. The rings then coagulated into moonlets and tidal interactions with the Earth pushed them outwards. The debris continued to accumulate, forming the moon.

Though each object likely had its unique composition, multiple small, high-velocity collisions could chip off more material from Earth than one massive crash. The different material could coalesce over time, evening out the differences. Variations in material would be more prominent in the aftermath of a one-time collision than in the results of small impacts happening over millions of years.

Rufu conducted more than 800 simulations on computers to see such a model play out.

Each run changed up the mass of impacting objects, the angle of collisions, and the speed at which they occurred. The multi-moon explanation yields the right lunar mix roughly twenty percent of the time, better than the 1 to 2 percentage of the Theia collision hypothesis.

“The biggest takeaway is that you cannot explain everything with one shot,” Rufu says. The multiple-impact collision raises questions though, such as how exactly the moonlets emerged to create a whole moon. Rufu says further study is needed to explore that process.

Don’t disregard Theia just yet though. The odds of Theia resembling earth’s composition may be a lot higher than initially presumed. Planetary scientist Nicolas Dauphas, from the University of Chicago reported that much of the material from Earth came from the same source of a type of meteorite called enstatite chondrites. By examining isotopic mixes of various elements in the Earth’s rock, Dauphas created a timeline of the kind of space rocks that were added to Earth and when.

Dauphas states that the first 60 percent of Earth’s mass came from that meteorite. The remaining mass came from the meteorite’s precursors. If Theia formed at

around the same distance from the sun as Earth, then there is a probability that it primarily formed the same type of material, the enstatite chondrites, and consequently has a similar isotopic composition. If that scenario is true, then it would make sense as to why the lunar rock would have a similar composition to Earth.

However, in his commentary, Richard Carlson from the Carnegie Institution for Science, wrote that the isotopes in the Earth’s mantle and the meteorites do not match and an additional step in the process is needed to explain this mismatch, such as some of the remaining element hiding deep within the Earth’s core.

Ultimately, future studies of our solar system are needed to confirm or rule out these predictions.

Probing deep within the moon’s and Earth’s interiors might prove the mini-moon explanation right. Rufu predicts that without a single giant collision, the interiors of the two worlds may not have been well mixed.

Dauphas believes that measuring the composition of other planets such as Mercury and Venus and observing if whether they also have earthlike compositions could lead credibility to his proposal on the Theia collision. Nevertheless, understanding the moon and its origins are important. Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, ‘“We went to the moon and we discovered Earth.” It’s time to put more emphasis on understanding not only the world, but the universe around us. It is critical that we support such endeavors to understand the cosmos surrounding us, because in turn that will develop a new perspective of our environment, its importance, and what it means to be alive.

- Afsana Rahman Dauphas, Nicolas. “The Isotopic Nature of the Earth Accreting Material through Time.” Nature 541.7638 (2017): 521-24. Web “Isotopic Similarities Seen in Materials That Formed Earth, Moon.” UChicago News. N.p., 25 Jan. 2017. Web. 02 May 2017.

Rufu, Raluca, Oded Aharonson. “A Multiple-impact Origin for the Moon.” Nature Geoscience 10.2 (2017): 89-94.

Web. Sumner, Thomas. “Competing Ideas Abound for How Earth Got Its Moon.” Science News. N.p., 11 Apr. 2017.

Web. 02 May 2017.

Hagai B. Perets. “A Multiple-impact Origin for the Moon.”

Nature Geoscience 10.2 (2017): 89-94. Web.

17 16

Uncertain?

The uncertainty within all things Humans see everything as defined and measurable.

For example, the words you are reading on this page have a certain size and position on the paper, and if you took out a ruler you could probably measure them. However, at the subatomic level, it’s not that simple. In fact, it’s impossible to measure anything to that degree of accuracy, as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle demonstrated for the first time in 1927.

measurement of velocity (Δp) must multiply to equal a constant ratio, h (Planck’s constant) divided by 2π, meaning that they are inversely proportional. The more accurate the position measurement, the less accurate the velocity measurement. But worry not — since Planck’s constant is incredibly small in the eyes of humans, we can still measure objects accurately enough to complete most tasks.

The Uncertainty Principle is a concept which states that it is effectively impossible to measure both the position and velocity of quantum particles, such as photons. The principle is represented by this equation:

The Uncertainty Principle is proven by the way photons sometimes behave like waves, which includes spreading out into space and not having a defined position. Due to the the fact that it is impossible to have the exact measurement of more than one property of a subatomic particle at a time, Heisenberg was convinced that probabilities had to be used to properly “measure” particles. He called his method “matrix mechanics.” It met strong opposition from Erwin Scrödinger, a rival quantum physicist who promoted “wave mechanics” above “matrix mechanics” until the two were proven equivalent.

Δx Δp > h / 2π, such that h is Planck’s Constant, x is the position of the particle and p is the velocity of the particle.

This principle states that the inaccuracy of the measurement of position (Δx) and the inaccuracy of the

18 17

In 1900, a scientist, Max Planck, made a discovery, using an alternative mathematical process he did not believe in. He unearthed the idea that light does not radiate in a constant stream, but instead in ultrasmall particles, which were later named photons.

However, even though a photon or electron is thought of as a particle, they can also exhibit wave-like behavior.

For example, if an electron orbits an atom, thus allowing its velocity to be easily calculated, it begins to have a very undefined position. This results from it being spread out across a certain amount of space, like a wave would be. Heisenberg studied as Niels Bohr’s assistant at his institution in Copenhagen, and came across this problem of accuracy while researching the new and radical theories of quantum physics.

In 1926, he began to flesh out the idea that eventually became the Uncertainty Principle, originally a more complicated equation that was simplified as Heisenberg refined his ideas. The world was not quick to accept Heisenberg’s theories and methods. Famous names such as Erwin Schrödinger and even Albert Einstein questioned the radical ideas.

Even so, in 1932, Heisenberg, then the youngest professor at the University of Leipzig, won a Nobel Prize for his work in the field of quantum physics.

Uncertainty Principle. N.p., n.d.

Web. 02 Feb. 2017.

Jha, Alok. “What Is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?” A Short History of Equations. Guardian News and Media, 10 Nov. 2013. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.

Tretkoff, Ernie. “February 1927: Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.” This Month in Physics History. Ed. Alan Chodos. APS News, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.

“Uncertainty Principle.” Uncertainty Principle. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.

“The Uncertainty Principle.” Uncertainty Principle.

N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.

“Quantum Mechanics.” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.

“Heisenberg States the Uncertainty Principle 1927.”

PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.

Story of the Day

Heisenberg gets pulled over for speeding.

“Do you know how fast you were going?” asks the cop.

Heisenberg replies: “No but I know exactly where I am.”

The cop looks at Heisenberg confused. “You were going 108 miles per hour!” he says.

“Well, great,” says Heisenberg. “Now I’m lost.”

The Uncertainty Principle played an integral part in the shaping of quantum physics by showing that there is a hidden mystery to everything in the universe. While at first it struggled to gain prominence, the principle is now one of the most important equations in quantum physics. When you read the words on this page, ponder the fact that they are always changing, in that miniscule, unmeasurable way.

- Nathan Ellis Cassidy, David. “Heisenberg - Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1927: The Uncertainty Principle.”

Heisenberg - Quantum Mechanics, 1925-1927: The

19 18

Robots replacing humans

20 19

Technology is advancing at an exponential rate, faster than ever. This expanse of new innovations has allowed humans to soar through the skies, cross oceans, converse with family members from the other end of the globe, instantaneously providing thousands of articles of information within seconds, and even explore the galaxy. The future is here, and technology is revolutionizing without warning.

(World Economic Forum) , “Current trends could lead to a net employment impact of more than 5.1 million jobs lost to disruptive labor market changes over the period 2015–2020.” The Forum estimates that a grand total of 7.1 million jobs will be lost as a direct result of many of our proudest innovations.” Although 2 million jobs will be gained through the use of technology, it is still a huge net loss for humans at the hands of human intelligence itself; the direction our economy is headed is terrifying.

Robots are just about It does not stop there, however, as robots are not only able to replace humans in low-skilled jobs, but could everywhere, from satellites also take on professions and jobs requiring creativity. exploring the cosmos to being Software programs or “bots” a handy device inside billions of are starting to invade pockets. professions such as journalism, They can be anything from automation software, to hardware devices, or even robotic arms constructing doctoring, teaching, and even houses and bridges. These devices have blended into human routines and have had tremendous impacts creating music. from advancing human civilization to simply making daily life more convenient.

However, human desires for efficiency and cheap costs have only driven the automation industry to expand further than ever before. According to a March 2015 paper, Robots at Work, a study was done examining the economic effects of industrial robots in 17 countries.

Unsurprisingly, from 1990 to 2005, they saw an increase in industrial robots of 150% and with it a drop of approximately 50% in base costs for these robotic machines.

The incorporation of these modern day technologies is causing an extraordinary change in how goods and services are provided to the customer. In the same study, it was shown that the use of robotic technology led to increase of both total factory productivity and wages.

Across the 17 countries studied, the increasing use of these devices raised both annual growth of GDP and labor productivity by 0.37 and 0.36 percent, respectively.

Furthermore, robots have advanced to surpass humans in nearly every aspect. Robots are designed and programmed to do repetitive tasks over hours, days, and even months with consistent accuracy and speed.

In contrast, the human body and mind are not programmed like robots. Humans tend to loathe boredom and repetitive tasks; they are bound to make mistakes and tire quickly in juxtaposition to machines. Furthermore, a robot can operate on 11 dollars an hour compared to the 22 dollars per hour a manufacturer has to pay a human worker, it is clear which is more efficient between the two. According to researchers at WEF

The brain truly is an amazing organ of the human body, it allows for observation, analysis, and creativity, but it is not magic. Programmers have created algorithms for software bots to take on tasks such as writing articles, providing medical suggestions, storing and teaching knowledge, and even creating art. All of this, while simultaneously collecting data through an immense database and improving upon itself at a rate no human can.

Fortunately, robots will not be conquering Earth anytime soon. They are, however, replacing the need for humans, and the effects of this are real and visible.

Solutions are needed to prepare for the near future, and humanity has to decide whether to fear such advancing technology or to work hand in hand with it.

- MinYi Lin Chang, Lulu. “Robots expected to replace some five million jobs by 2020.” Digital Trends. N.p., 19 Jan. 2016.

Web. 02 Apr. 2017.

“Robots at work: The economic effects of workplace automation.” Journalist’s Resource. N.p., 22 Nov. 2016.

Web. 02 Apr. 2017.

Wee, Michele Bertoncello and Dominik. “Ten ways autonomous driving could redefine automotive world.”

McKinsey & Company. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.

“Will robots replace humans?” Society, media and science - Research highlights - Research and expertise Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.

21 20

Hacked through your fingerprints

Every person is born with a unique fingerprint that cannot be changed, absent burning it off.

22 21

Everybody loves the internet. On average, six new Facebook profiles per second are created, eighty million photos are uploaded to Instagram per day, and thirty percent of the global population uses social media. Thankfully, there is a growing awareness among young people on what to avoid posting online. This extensive list includes photos of illegal activity, as well as private information such as passwords, credit card information, personal address and phone numbers. Yet as shared and stored photos of people create an increasing database of information, are fingerprints considered private, too?

Fingerprints are patterns of ridges over fingertips.

Every person is born with a unique fingerprint that cannot be changed, absent burning it off. It is a piece of biological data used to recognize individuals, making it a visual biometric. Biometrics is the “automated recognition of individuals based on their biological and behavioral characteristics” (Biometrics Institute). Visual biometrics are also used in airport security with iris recognition, in blood banks with fingerprints, and auditory biometrics such as voice recognition are used, or will soon be used, in some cars. Other types of biometrics are behavioral, with signature recognition, chemical, with DNA matching, and olfactory.

Biometric data are the most personal information people have; they are the literal expression of human genomes.

This beckons the question: is biometric information secure? According to Japan’s National Institute of Informatics (NII), the answer is undeniably no. NII found that fingerprints could be recreated from welllit photos taken as far as three feet away from the subject. In 2014, German hacker Jan Krissler replicated the fingerprint of Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen using pictures taken from a standard camera.

In 2015, he extracted the iris data from German Chancellor Angela Merkel using a photo taken at a press conference. Krissler says that iris, fingerprint, and facial technology together constitute “ninety percent of the biometrics market value.”

lem places mainly celebrities in danger. Nonetheless, there are some possible solutions. Professor Alan Woodward, cybersecurity expert from Surrey University, said that “people are starting to look for things where the biometric is alive — vein recognition in fingers, gait [body motion] analysis — they are also biometrics but they are chosen because the person has to be in possession of them and exhibiting them in real life.” Suprema is a leading company in biometrics and securities technology. It has developed a live finger detection technology to distinguish a fake print.

Live fingers, when touching the surface of a sensor, have natural movement patterns. Fake fingers have unnatural movement patterns, sharp boundaries, and typically do not represent pore distribution. Dr. Isao Echizen and his team work at NII and have developed a transparent film that protects fingertips from being copied, but the technology won’t be completely ready until two years from now. Barclay’s Bank uses near infrared light to check the unique patterns of veins inside the finger, but the technology is relatively expensive.

Even without Echizen’s film or live biometrics technology, the easiest way to keep this biometric data safe is to cover up. Krissler suggests that politicians wear gloves. Maybe instead of using the two-finger peace sign as this month’s profile picture, consider using the turned around two-fingered victory sign instead.

- Jada Heredia Demetriou, Cara McGoogan; Danielle. “Peace Sign Selfies Could Let Hackers Copy Your Fingerprints.”

The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 12 Jan. 2017.

Web. 30 May 2017.

Williams, Brett. “Cyber Thieves Have a Sneaky New Way to Steal Your Fingerprints (and You’re Helping Them).” Mashable. Mashable, 11 Jan. 2017. Web. 30 May 2017.

Jason Chaikin, president of biometric verification company Vkansee, presents another opinion. “If you look at 100 pictures of people staring into a megapixel camera flashing the peace sign, probably less than 30 percent have the right type of lighting.” This prob-

23 22

Conspiracy Theories Since the beginning of time, humans have always been interested in unexplained disasters, legends, and myths. This interest is the main reason for the start of conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a scheme or plan without warrant, commonly one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by the government or other powerful actors. The genius of these conspiracy theories is that even though they are false and do not make sense.

It is very difficult to prove them wrong.

Almost everyday, new conspiracy theories are formed, sometimes they even appear as headlines in the news.

Conspiracy theories are challenging to prove wrong for two central reasons. First, conspiracy theorists base their beliefs in value other than science, they usually create theories in fear. They are motivated by paranoia to believe what they do. Until their motivations change, they are not easily swayed by rational or scientific arguments. Secondly, their logic is self-sealing, meaning it is designed to be impermeable to external reasoning.

When people start believing one theory, it is more likely they will believe in other theories. This builds on and keeps repeating, and according to The Washington Post, about 50 percent of people living in America believe in a conspiracy theory. Recently, the United Kingdom’s The Sun newspaper reported that Earth was soon to be struck by a giant rock, and the results of this collision

24 23

would be catastrophic. First, this claim is wrong; while there is an asteroid passing by Earth, it will not collide with our planet, it will instead pass us at a distance further than the closest approach of Venus. The article also states, “it’s so huge, you’ll be able to see it from Britain.”

However, the ability to see an object from Britain does not specifically mean it is large. This theory was also linked to greater conspiracy theories. For example, one of these theories states that the rock was a segment of the fabled planet, Nibiru, held to be the end of humanity. The heading of this nonsensical article ended with the phrase, “according to this scientist.” However, it has been noted that there is no evidence on the existence of this “scientist”.

These unrealistic claims, made by falsely credible sources, cause people to believe in conspiracy theories.

Humans are always so fascinated by stories that explain the end of the world. There is even a world for the study of this- eschatology, from the Greek roots eschatos for “last” and ology for “to study”. But simply because this fascination exists does not mean it is acceptable to create ridiculous theories. Not when, it is without logical reason, and especially not in the name of science.

- Mia Akhter Ellerton, Peter. “The ironclad logic of conspiracy theories and how to break it.” Phys.org. The Conversation, 6 Oct. 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.

Ellerton, Peter. “When crackpot conspiracy theories are touted as news, we all lose.” Phys.org.

The Conversation, 31 Jan. 2017. Web. 22 Feb. 2017.

Genetically modified?

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE) organisms are foods with altered DNA. Specific strands of DNA are eliminated or added, through genetic engineering, to increase the nutritional value and resistance to pests, diseases, and extreme weather. A desired gene is first extracted from an organism. It is then cloned and inserted into the new organism. Genes that produce an enzyme that the body turns into vitamins are inserted into plants, increasing its nutritional value. Genetic Engineering can be used to remove the seeds from plants and fruit, allowing people to buy seedless grapes and watermelons.

The DNA is altered so the fruit produces a seed but not a hard outer shell. GMOs also require less land, chemicals, and resources to grow. GMOs can also be used to create plants that can be used for vaccines and cures against diseases such as diabetes, hemophilia, the flu, etc. Thousands of studies have proven that GMOs are safe. The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine reviewed over 900 tests and over 20 years worth of data. They also held public meetings and analyzed over 700 comments and documents from the public. They “found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops” (Lynas). Yet people still believe they are harmful.

Consumers hold a bias against GMOs because they look for authenticity in their foods. The reports verifying the safety of GMOs do not affect the public because the trend for organic foods is rising. In the views of the public, many have the misconception that GMOs or any non-organic foods should not be consumed. The public

needs to realize that GMOs are safe and beneficial for humans. The University of California in San Diego concluded that toxic bacterium can be added to crops to make them resistant to insects with no harmful effects.

GMOs have proven to be safe and beneficial to people’s health. They should not be advocated against.

GMOs have helped many third world countries fight malnutrition. Golden rice has been modified to have high levels of beta-carotene, which the body converts to Vitamin A. It may not be a problem for citizens of first world countries to consume enough Vitamin A, but nearly 1 million children die every year due to Vitamin A deficiency. Golden rice can be used to enrich the diets of people in places such as Africa, India, and the Philippines. In fact, the United Nations encourages the use of golden rice. GMOs are beneficial and safe for human consumption. They provide more vitamins and minerals and are resistant to pests and insects. They give people a more nutritious diet. GMOs have overwhelming positive effects and should be consumed without concern for safety.

- Syeda Mahajabin Duvauchelle, Joshua. “Pros & Cons of GMO Foods.”

LIVESTRONG.COM. Leaf Group, 13 Jan. 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.

Lomborg, Bjørn. “How “Golden” Rice Will Save Millions of Lives.” Slate Magazine. N.p., 17 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Mar. 2017.

Mark Lynas. “GMO safety debate is over.” Cornell Alliance for Science. N.p., 24 May 2016.

25 24

KAKURO Puzzles

26 25

Kakuro puzzles are like a cross between a crossword and a Sudoku puzzle.

Instead of letters, each block contains the digits 1 through 9. The same digit will never repeat within a word. If you add the digits in a word, the sum will be the number shown in the clue. Clues are shown on the left and right sides of “across” words, and on the top and bottom sides of “down” words.

27 26

ISSUE #11

About Dr. Dragon Dr. Dragon is our school’s student produced magazine that focuses on math, science, and engineering. The mission of this magazine is to give HSMSE students the opportunity to take the school’s core subjects and explore subtopics that particularly interest them. Students on the magazine staff research and write about subjects of their choice. They are also involved with the production of the magazine, and learn about everything from design to fundraising and budgeting.

If you are an HSMSE student and want to contribute your thoughts, please talk to our officers or our faculty advisor, Mr. Choi.

Contact information: Dr. Dragon email: hsmsedrdragon@gmail.com Mr. Choi: RChoi@hsmse.org Also, you can read our previous magazines, and check the answers to crossword puzzles and Sudoku puzzles by visiting our website: sites.Google.com/site/hsmsedrdragon/

Copyright © 2016 by Dr. Dragon All rights reserved. Published by Dr. Dragon No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means without prior written permission by the publisher.

27 28

Crystal Bonds, Principal