Beaker Spring 2013 by The Beaker

Dear Readers, Welcome to your first issue of The Beaker. In the 2012-2013 school year, a small group of enthusiastic scientist-writers met to embark on a journey to merge the humanities and sciences. In the coming weeks, they worked tirelessly to write, edit, design, and create something worthy of our school's standard for excellence, even when doing so didn’t seem remotely feasible. The product of this collaboration? Del Norte’s very own science magazine: The Beaker. With an eye for perfection, and an excitement for all things science, we at The Beaker have but one mission: to inspire you to have a passion for science that is as infectious as our staff’s. Through an assortment of engaging articles, we hope to create a dynamic scientific community at Del Norte that inspires you to pursue STEM, intrigues you with opinions on the latest scientific controversies, and exposes you to the latest in science news, cutting-edge technologies, and interesting research performed by students and professionals. Not a science buff? No worries. The Beaker is aimed at audiences with all levels of experience in science, from a freshman Biology student, to a senior taking AP Physics. Writers at The Beaker seek to create articles that are comprehensible by all students, without taking away from the intellectualism that a sophisticated magazine requires. In our inaugural issue, you'll get to read about the wonders of space, the debate over environmentalism, the academic triumphs of our current seniors, the science of Star Trek, and much more. From the op-eds and reviews, to the original research and community articles, our writers aim to show you just how important science is in all of our lives and motivate you to get involved in the ever-changing fields of physics, biology, medicine, chemistry, and technology. So sit back, relax, and enjoy your first issue of The Beaker, Nighthawks. This one, and all of our issues to come, is for you. Yours,

Christina Cheng Editor-in-Chief | President Ajay Nathan Editor-in-Chief | Vice President

contributors

BEAKER 01 02 05

07 09 11

SPRInG 2013

12 13 15

17 19 21

SOUNDING SMART A common misconception about Einstein is that he did poorly in math. Despite the story, recounted on countless inspirational posters, Einstein never failed math. In fact, he was always good in school and had even mastered calculus by age fifteen. The myth probably caught on because it was so outrageous and confidence boosting [1]. Einstein’s humbling genius is reflected clearly in his various theories. Einstein is most remembered for his insight on space-time and his theory of special relativity. The spacetime conception of the universe considers time a dimension along with the three of physical space. Time is considered the fourth dimension, not to be confused with the fourth dimension of multidimensional mathematics “w”. Special relativity describes the motion of objects moving at relativistic speeds, or speeds close to the speed of light. In traditional, Galilean physics, the velocity of the other of two objects moving past one another is found by adding the two individual velocities. A problem arises when discussing objects moving close to the speed of light, which is a constant 300,000,000 meters per second in all inertial reference frames. An inertial reference frame is a method by which the physical world is described on a set of axes about a fixed origin: we are the origin of our own reference frames. To better understand this concept, consider the fact that we are moving with zero velocity in our reference frame even though we are moving around the sun at a high speed. This is because everything is moving with us at the same rate, and there is no relative acceleration. Thus, when two objects move past each other at close

to the speed of light, the objects do not pass each other at near twice the speed of light. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, when objects are moving at relativistic speeds, their conception of time is essentially slowed. Consider the following situation: a man standing in a train moving at constant velocity shines a light up at a plane mirror. This man will see the beam travel up to the mirror and straight back down. This makes sense, because the observer is moving with the light beam. Then consider a stationary observer standing just outside the train. This observer will see the light strike the ceiling and come back down diagonally. Because the speed of light is constant, it must take more “time” for the light to travel the diagonal distance. This explains time dilation, the idea that conceptions of time are dependent on relative velocities and reference frame. Time dilation explains why a space traveler moving near the speed of light may only perceive a change in time of say two years, whereas a person on Earth would perceive a change in time of say fifty years, even though the same amount of absolute time had passed [2]. Einstein’s other famous theories include the theory of general relativity, which concerns gravity. This theory deals with the idea that constant motion is unobservable. Just as the motion of Earth is undetectable until observed from space, a skydiver could argue that he actually is not moving and the world instead is moving around him. This ceases to be true after factoring acceleration into the equation. Now the falling skydiver can no longer make the argument that he is not moving, because he is going

against inertia by changing speed. Einstein made the revolutionary claim that gravity itself was not a force and actually a geometric curve in space. This led to the famous portrayal of gravitational fields as merely distorted space: that an object caught in gravity may as well be traveling straight in a curved universe. Einstein also discovered the revolutionary relationship between energy and mass, described by E=mc2. This equation defines energy as equivalent to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. The equation is used mainly to suggest that as an object loses incredibly small amounts of mass, it releases with it tremendous amounts of energy. It is this principle that describes why nuclear explosions are so powerful. In quantum mechanics, this pivotal equation is used to describe waves in terms of particle properties, such as mass. This equation also defines the universal speed limit as “c”, or the speed of light. This is because as an object’s kinetic energy increases, its mass must increase proportionally to satisfy the equation. A more massive object is harder to accelerate. Light has no mass, so it cannot have kinetic energy in the traditional sense: therefore, light moves faster than any other object. Einstein’s theories have laid the foundation for modern physics and are the basis for most discoveries made today in that field. Learning about Einstein’s theories and understanding why he is often called the most intelligent man ever to live, will allow you to understand the universe in a more profound way, giving you the ability to sound smart in any situation.

EXPLORING the

EXTRATERRESTRIAL

Space. The vast, mysterious cosmos beyond Earth. For centuries, humans have gazed into the stars and asked, “Are we alone?” Today, scientists are sweeping the cosmos in search of life. When scientists begin their search, they look for various key indicators of life. Firstly, scientists check if the planet has a constant supply of energy, such as light energy from a star it is orbiting. Secondly, scientists verify that certain molecules needed in chemical reactions, such as hydrogen peroxide, exist on the planet [1]. Finally, they look for liquid water, which catalyzed the formation of life on Earth. To see if the presence of liquid water is a possibility, scientists measure a planet’s distance relative to its source of heat, generally the star its orbiting. If this source is just a bit too close, any water remains gaseous, and if it is just a bit too far, any water remains solid. But these criteria do allow some room for deviance. It has not been proven that a planet’s distance relative to a star has to be within a certain range to harbor life. In fact, planets are not the only celestial bodies scientists have been searching for life. For example, scientists recently speculated that Europa, one of Jupiter’s moons, could be a source of life. Covered in ice, the moon has an abundance of molecules essential to life. Scientists suspect that underneath the ten mile deep layer of ice, marine life may be swimming in a fifty mile deep ocean. While temperatures on the surface of Europa rarely exceed negative 260 degrees Fahrenheit,

Jupiter’s gravity can warm Europa’s insides, creating an environment that can support life [1]. This warming occurs as a product of the constant stretching and compressing of water under the ice, caused by tidal forces similar to the ones on Earth from the moon. Europa’s atmosphere and subsurface ocean are tending towards oxygenation, as charged particles from Jupiter’s magnetic field hit the surface ice and create oxygen [2]. Recently, NASA’s Kepler mission discovered two new planetary systems that include three possible candidates for life. Planetary system Kepler-62 has two planets suitable for life, Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f, and planetary system Kepler-69 has one planet suitable for life, Kepler-69c. These discoveries join 2,740 other candidates that the Kepler mission has found as of April 18th, 2013. This mission has put us one step closer to finding life beyond Earth [3]. But soon we may have to add even more planets to that list, as recent discoveries have shown that the presence of purely liquid water may not be required for life to exist. In Canada, scientists discovered a bacterium surviving in ice at negative 15 degrees Celsius. Scientists believe the bacterium lives near thin veins of salt, as salt prevents water from freezing completely. The bacterium has also adapted to the extreme cold by synthesizing temperature-resistant proteins, using a molecular antifreeze mechanism, and sporting a modified membrane [4]. Mars has cold polar ice caps that resemble the ice these bacteria thrive in, indicating that these

ice caps may be conducive to life. Further corroborating the possibility of life on Mars are the recent findings by NASA’s rover Curiosity of smooth, round pebbles, similar to the ones found in Earth’s rivers. Researchers believe these stones were shaped by a fast-flowing river—that is, liquid water [5]. Additionally, Curiosity examined Martian rocks and found smectite, a clay mineral that forms when water is present. Curiosity’s chemistry lab also discovered signs that any water existent on Mars was likely pH neutral and may have carried substances that could provide energy to microbes [6]. Before we get too optimistic however, we need to realize that Curiosity’s findings are highly speculative. Scientists believe that Mars had liquid water, and possibly life along with it, billions of years ago, when life was just starting to form on Earth. But at some point in time, Mars dried up and lost most of its atmosphere, along with any hope for the existence of life [6]. But even this is just a theory—we do not have sufficient proof that life ever existed on Mars at all, as the presence of water does not guarantee life. From our solar system to the distant Kepler planetary systems, scientists have been given faint signs of extraterrestrial life, hoping to put to rest the omnipresent question of our place in the universe. For now, we can only cross our fingers as we attempt to piece together the puzzles of this mystery, trusting our scientific innovations to continue to guide the way.

Coined by the Greeks and named for the sculptor Phidias, “phi” is an irrational number that can be simplified to approximately 1.618033... The Parthenon, built in Athens around 440 BC, was made with this golden number in mind. The structure is a pleasing sight to behold—one that has inspired numerous art revolutions throughout history. After a more careful examination of the rectangles that make up the Parthenon’s columns and walls, it becomes clear that the Parthenon was built with dimensions that mirror the golden ratio. To be in proportion with such an irrational number simply implies that when one length of a golden rectangle, the space between the columns of the Parthenon, is divided by the length of another golden rectangle, the quotient is a number similar to phi [1]. Many Renaissance artists, two thousand years after Phidias, used the golden ratio in their works, indicating an instinctive affinity for this quantity. The famed Leonardo Da Vinci called it the “divine proportion,” and used the ratio in many of his works, because he thought it was aesthetically beautiful and easy on the eyes. After a careful examination of the Mona Lisa, one can see that rectangles encompassing various aspects of the body and face of the subject can be drawn to match the golden ratio of 1 to 1.61803 [1].

This astounding number that the Greeks thought was a gift from the gods is being carefully studied by psychologists today. Numerous studies have found that rectangles arranged in this ratio elicit the most favorable response from the brain in terms of aesthetic appeal, but a general consensus has not been conjured in the midst of heated debate. One thing that can be agreed upon is the process by which one can obtain the number phi. In order to calculate a number that approaches phi, simply follow these steps: 1. Divide 1 by any nonzero number. 2. Add one to the quotient from Step 1. 3. Divide 1 by this new nonzero number and repeat. The somewhat tedious repetition of these steps yields a number that approaches approximately 1.618033, or phi. This same phenomenon can be produced using the Fibonacci Sequence, an infinite sequence of numbers, in which zero and one are the first terms, and each subsequent term is found by adding the two numbers before it. The sequence is 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55... A number approaching phi can be obtained by dividing the larger of a pair of numbers in the Fibonacci

Sequence by the smaller—the greater the numbers, the closer to phi. For example, the ratio of 34 to 21 is approximately 1.619, and the ratio of 55 to 34 is approximately 1.6176. As the terms one divides get larger, the quotient obtained straddles the golden number [2]. The golden ratio explains the appearance of many aspects of the natural world. The Fibonacci or golden spiral, which contains rectangles of lengths defined by the golden ratio, is found easily in nature and the universe. For example, the Milky Way Galaxy, snail shells, and hurricanes all follow the golden spiral. Although these spirals can be somewhat difficult to construct, they allow scientists to predict and examine the shape of objects, as well as create aesthetically pleasing designs [3]. So the next time you complain about how math is nothing but an excess of unrealistic concepts and formulaic ideals that make your brain ache, stop for a moment and remember the golden ratio. Remember that something as complicated as the structure of our faces, the pattern on a pineapple, or the length of our arms and fingers in proportion to one another can all be rationally explained with something as irrational as a ratio of numbers.

Our planet: WHY SHOULD WE CARE? Most environmentalists seem to believe that humans have a moral obligation to care for the environment—an obligation that compensates for our “overconsumption” of natural resources and our “destruction” of ecosystems for our own selfish needs. This purported moral obligation assumes that acting of our own self interest is wrong, when inherently it cannot be. Acting solely to benefit oneself is a fundamental aspect of life itself. Humans cutting down rainforests to build urban metropolises is analogous to beavers building dams in pristine rivers. Humans should not be held to a higher standard than the other species we share our planet with. So should the state of our environment concern us? The answer is categorically yes, but only because such a concern would benefit us. Most of us would not be here today if it were not for advances in modern medicine. Many of us do not realize that a majority of these advances are resultant from the biodiversity that exists on our planet. The chemicals that comprise the medicines we take are often derived from chemicals found naturally in the environment. Nearly 40% of the medicines we use come from things found in nature, and we have only explored 5% of existing plant species for medical purposes. The other 95% of unexplored plant species may hold secrets that could answer important and confounding medical questions, but if we continue to allow 100 plant species to go extinct daily, we may lose vital information that can never be regained. Even plant species that we have known about for quite a long time can prove useful—the Pacific yew, which was ravaged as trash for years, contains a unique chemical called taxol that has shown to be promising in the treatment of several types of cancer [1]. Additionally, nature provides us with natural resources that have, or are becoming,

essential to our survival. Seeing as the human population is growing exponentially, conserving these resources will become necessary. Demand will exceed supply if we do not act quickly. Non-renewable energy sources are rapidly depleting—the natural formation of coal and oil takes millions of years, and the rate at which we are consuming these fossil fuels is increasing steadily. Even at current demand, our oil supply will only last for 46 years and our coal supply for 188 [2]. Using renewable energy sources may be the only way we can sustain our population for generations to come. Other essential resources that are quickly running out include freshwater, which we are losing to pollution and massive consumption. The United Nations estimates that by 2025, 1.9 billion people will be living in absolute water scarcity if the status quo continues [3]. Absolute water scarcity is a technical term and occurs when the amount of potable, safe water is not enough for survival. Every individual can make small changes to decrease the likelihood of these dangerous trends. Everyone can make a difference by simply using less and reusing more—practices that provide benefits to oneself and the environment include recycling plastic bottles and aluminum cans, disposing of trash properly, and using reusable items as opposed to disposal ones. Goals that the human population in general should adopt include transitioning to renewable energy sources from fossil fuels on a large scale. By caring for our environment, humans are not appealing to some moral obligation that has little basis. Humans are appealing to their innate need to act of self interest. Ensuring the survival of our environment and our only planet is essential to ensuring our own.

The overhyped movement Nowadays, the imminent threat of global warming to our ice caps and the emotional news about that one dying species are all we hear about in regards to the environment. The manipulative media has led us to believe that in the near future, over-consumption and overpopulation will leave our planet in shambles. The labels “green” and “ecofriendly” are attached to every other consumer good in a malicious marketing attempt. Environmentalists are afraid that humans are leaving too massive a footprint in the world, poisoning it with our “unnatural” actions. They blame the expanse of human civilization, our heedless care for the environment, and our shameful attitude toward the other animals we share Earth with. However, these accusations are unfounded and highly exaggerated—our planet is in much better condition than it is made out to be. The causes and effects of global warming are contentious issues in the scientific community. Global warming is real alright, but it is not as bad as what you may have been led to believe. Recent research has shown that global warming is one of Earth’s natural cycles [1]. For millions of years, the Earth has been warming and cooling, producing incredibly hot eras—what we are tending towards now—and cold eras, such as the Ice Age. A study in 2008 by MIT researchers found that, though methane levels are increasing, this has happened before in Earth’s history [2]. Though it is true that advancements in human civilization

have produced greenhouse gases that exacerbate the effects of global warming, and that developing more advanced renewable energy sources would be beneficial, global warming is not a direct result of our actions, and we do not need to impede progress in order to stop changes of negligible effect to life on Earth. In fact, progress in human technology and society are only leading to a better world. Humans are often deemed the most destructive species on this planet, but this is simply an exaggerated claim. Humans take what they need in order to sustain civilization and criticizing our practices is criticizing progress and advancement. The pollution and degradation of ecosystems are not purposeful, but are byproducts of the improved quality of life we have over that of the lives of animals. Actually, scientific advancements today are looking to reduce the negative effects that humans impose on the environment. Greenhouse gas emissions have actually dipped considerably in the past ten years [3]. Animal conservation efforts are naturally becoming more effective as we advance, and species like the California Condor and Chinese Panda are coming up from the pit of extinction. Claims that the world is becoming progressively worse are hyperboles. Concern for the environment should not increase. Instead, we should expend our resources on advancing and accept small changes to our environment as necessary products of our humanity.

THE

beaker