Dreams

Dreams.

My true goal in life is to make a difference. To me the entirety  of the world can be improved through the hard work and dedication of driven individuals, and I hope to one day contribute to global progress by achieving my aspirations and accomplishing my goal.

To begin the road to success, I first must obtain a valid post-secondary education. This involves a four year bachelor degree program at the University of North Texas, where I hope to partake in a dual major in Political Science and Macroeconomics, and a minor in business. After receiving my undergraduate degrees, I hope to attend the United States Naval Academy for Officer Corps Training Services and graduate with honors as a Captain in the United States Navy. My position in the armed services serves a dual purpose in my life goals, the first is that serving my nation as a member of the military has always been something that I feel that I owe this great country, as a thanks for all of the opportunities that this nation affords me. The other purpose, however, is that my service to the United States Navy will open up doors financially that would otherwise be closed to me. After my mandatory tours of duty, the Government Issue Bill will help me cover the costs of a graduate education at Harvard Law School, where I hope to pursue a degree in constitutional law. After all of this, I'm planning on returning to Texas to begin paying my dues in the Texas political scene, and working on the creation of the Non-Profit "R Cubed" with Christian Rice and Max Rombado, which will focus on improving the educational standards of America.

Hopefully, after all of my years of schooling, military service, and political ladder-climbing, I'll finally be able to hold my dream job, Federal Senator for the state of Texas. With this position I hope to enact comprehensive legislation which will break the bonds of partisanship and catapult the nation into an era of prosperity. By addressing issues which I feel passionately about, I hope to persuade my fellow senators to act favorably and help me solve issues like education, deficit spending, foreign affairs, among other broken policy agendas which I hope to correct. 

Therein lies my future, a long road marred by financial burdens, sleepless nights, and the potential for live combat, all so I can make my mark on history.

Conventional Hypotheses

Conventional Hypotheses

On any given day humans are subjected to thousands of stimuli, all of which culminate into one orgiastic bubble of thoughts which we call perception. Constantly the Universe pelts us with a steady stream of information, and every so often we experience a brand new form of stimulation or come across an event which we do not understand. In cases such as these the mind must act radically in order to make sense of this new data, using a logical thought process referred to as "The Scientific Method" (basically, Observation > Hypothesis > Test of Hypothesis > New Observation > New Hypothesis > Test New Hypothesis, and the cycle continues).  From a scientific aspect, this method provides guidelines for making rational observations about the Universe, and a means of testing the hypotheses of those observations. On a daily basis, however, this form of thinking allows for a re-structuring of ideologies and functional responses to improve the chances of survival in a harsh world. Thus, an expansion of this logical construct seems necessary to understand the relationship between science and everyday living.

Daily life is a river of occurrences marked by the random debris of thought. This debris is generally not obstructive to the flow of the river, but sometimes there are obstacles which cannot be overcome without some pause. To extend the river metaphor, you can imagine yourself, or at least your consciousness, drifting along with the current of time. As you travel downstream, there are bound to be rocks, branches, and other items in place to prevent you from maintaining a smooth flow path. Mostly these obstacles are easily finessed without much effort, but larger obstacles, say a log or a dam extended across the whole of the river, completely stagnate your response to the obstacle (even if only for a moment) as your mind must work through and develop a new strategy to bypass these larger delays. In these situations the brain employs several biological strategies in order to maintain survival. Neurons become flooded with epinephrine as the body engages in a semi-Fight or Flight response to speed up neurological functioning and allow for quicker judgement. At the same time, your nervous system begins analyzing all possibilities using the senses to collect information about the new stimuli. The eyes bounce images to the occipital lobe to be interpreted, Olfactory receptors in the nose detect the scent of stagnated water (indicating an impending change in velocity), the somatosensory system detects a hint of wind coming directed opposite to the present flow, all of these things slow the response time to the obstacle, as your body makes its initial observations of the situation. Then, using the manufactured observations, you can consciously develop a hypothesis for overcoming the obstacle. For sake of continuity, let us say that you choose to port your vehicle and go around the object in your path. Upon attempting this, you find that there is no place on the other side to launch your vehicle. At this point, your body begins the same process over, gauging the input from various senses, developing an observation, and then handing that observation to the pre-frontal cortex to consciously develop the hypothesis for a solution.

There, in a very rudimentary state, is an example of how the scientific method works in the day to day. The body develops observations, consciousness constructs a hypothesis, and then after testing the hypothesis, new observations are made and put towards the creation of a new hypothesis. In the simplicity of this logical thought process, the attitudes of the scientific community bleed into the lives of every individual. By providing a set of guidelines for thought, opening the floodgates to basic logical reasoning, the scientific method grants a roadmap to the development of new perspectives and in turn, true progress. 

Furthermore, it can be argued that this process is not just used for large or previously un-encountered stimuli, rather it makes more sense to think of this process as being a constant perpetual cycle. Essentially, the same way that a computer processor constantly analyzes and interprets new inputs, the brain would do the same and develop a set of given processes that, not unlike an algorithm, would match up to and effectively solve any oncoming obtrusion to life. Yet, these autopilot functions are not immune to change. The mind could very easily adapt and accommodate more efficient means of overcoming an antagonizing stimuli, in the same way that central processing units will re-write and update codes of data while a file is being stored in random-access memory. In both of these cases, the set command is improved and then re-stored either in a hard drive (in the case of a CPU) or the cerebral cortex (in the case of a human brain). What this means, is that the observation > hypothesis > test > repeat cycle is forever working and altering the reactions humans make to particular situations. In the case of a relatively common stimuli, the brain still manages the situation as a new encounter, using the pre-written response as a guideline for an appropriate response.

However, there are instances where this process is bypassed for the purposes of pure survival. Essentially, in an instance where time is a heavily weighted factor (as in a life or death scenario) the brain will rely solely on the already established response, foregoing the time consuming logic system for an immediate, albeit potentially inefficient, response. By maintaining these pre-existing commands, the brain ensures its survival with a fail-safe on consciousness. It is impossible to always consciously analyze every single bit of information in its entirety, so cultivation of an automated itinerary is necessary to continue making observations at all (seeing as it's rather difficult to observe stimuli posthumously).

In the end, the scientific method is vital to the development of new responses to new situations, and it is a crucial tool for the updating of already existing automatic reactions. In a sense, the scientific method furthers all thought by commanding the most basic logical thought process. Thinking logically about new data is rather rare in the natural world, and humanity often takes the rarity of this gift for granted. As intelligence develops and new generations see the world through a new set of eyes, it will be the scientific method which grants them the ability to see the world as they want to.  

A Brief History of Time

A Brief History of Time

My interest in science has deep roots within my personality, as long as I can remember I've been interested in figuring out how the universe works, what makes things happen, and I've always kindled a particular flame of curiosity for space related science. For awhile, I wanted to become an astrophysicist and one day invent an operational warp drive to propel the world (or rather, propel space) into the future of inter-planetary/stellar/galactic travel. But my fascination with science all began a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Yes, when I was a boy my dream job was Jedi Knight and Anakin Skywalker was my hero. I've since come to resent the Star Wars prequels for the cinematic sludge they are, but they still hold a special place in my heart for piquing my interest in space, and subsequently, all sciences. After realizing that space and the Universe is the most astonishing wonder of life, I began to try and expand my knowledge of the extra-terrestrial by delving further into science fiction. When the crew of the Enterprise set off on their adventures, boldly going where no one had gone before, I couldn't help but feel like a part of the Federation at the side of Captain James T. Kirk, and later on, Captain Jean Luc Picard. These fictional journeys expanded my imagination and showed me possibilities of what could be out there, beyond the stars.

 However sadly astrophysics is not on the curricular schedule of a 3rd grader, and thus my elementary science classes failed to answer all of my questions about the Universe. The person who could answer them though was my father who, like me, shared such a passion for space that he even pursued a degree in astrophysics in college (unfortunately fell short by a credit of advanced calculus, or as he would say "the wrath of Tan"). He, my brother, and myself would spend hours discussing physical concepts as they pertained to the Universe, he would blow my mind with his explanations of starlight and the vast distances of the void of space. It was he who fueled the fire of my knowledge about space. After years of discussions with my father, I realized that it was time to expand my quest for knowledge to include such resources as the Internet and my Eighth grade IPC teacher, Mr. Gregg.

Mr. Gregg and I would have after school discussions about orbital mechanics and Newtonian physics on the planetary level. Once he briefly mentioned that escape velocity could be calculated using the earth's circumference, and gravity. After he said this I became obsessed with figuring out the escape velocity of the planet, I wanted to know how fast a person would need to go in order to sail among the stars. As a puny eighth grader I sat in the halls of my school after class and with my trusty TI-84 Silver edition and I calculated escape velocity on my own. The number I came to was 24,864 mph, and when I excitedly showed Mr. Gregg he chuckled and put the actual escape velocity on the board, 25,200 mph. I couldn't help but laugh. Me, a tiny eighth grader in my post-ironic band t-shirts and glasses calculated escape velocity to 98.6% accuracy. Needless to say, I was stunned, and with a new vigor I thirsted for more knowledge as I entered the realm of High School.  

Today after four years of a secondary education, I can happily say that my journey to know more about space, technology, and all aspects of scientific discovery is nowhere near complete. Instructional tools such as my science courses, and educational Youtube videos have spurred me to hunger for more and more knowledge. Books like Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" have altered my perspectives on even rudimentary physical concepts, and have stupefied my views on relativity and quantum theory. Neil Degrasse Tyson has showed me the importance of education and expansion of our knowledge of the Universe. So, because of all the encouragement and knowledge I've received from my heroes, teachers, and family, my quest continues. Every day scientists and physicists make groundbreaking discoveries that push the world further into understanding our vast Universe. Humanity, so often bogged down by struggle and conflict is uplifted by our knowledge of what surrounds us in space and time. Even when humans are gone, when the sun's core fuses into iron and collapses into a white dwarf after consuming all of the inner planets, mankind will endure through the legacies we build among the stars.

 When ancient humans looked up to the heavens they gaped in awe of the billions of points of light above them, and were stunned by the untouchable beauty. Now it is time for we to do what they could not. Its time for humanity to take the next step in the trail to the future. To touch the stars and planets that our ancestors could only worship.

Armed with the knowledge of my past, it is that goal which I set for my future.

More On LFTRs

More On LFTRs

As of right now, an attempt to shift the world away from carbon based means of producing energy would be very difficult. This of course is the product of many calculated legislative campaigns, a powerfully misinformed public, and a discouraging lack of alternative energy infrastructure. Even with these hurdles, the world will eventually have to hoist itself into a more suitable means of producing energy, cue the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). These fission reactors are one of the many ways the world can propel itself into affordable green energy production, but more than that they have the potential to revert all of the negative stigmas associated with nuclear reactors. This is because of the astonishing amount of safety features used in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, as well as Thorium itself being a safer alternative to Uranium and Plutonium.

One of the primary concerns the public has with nuclear reactors is the fear of a meltdown. This fear originates from such disasters as the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown, during which several containment failures during a systems test resulted in graphite fires as well as the core material reaching critical mass causing a nuclear excursion equivalent to the simultaneous detonation of ten tons of TNT. Thankfully, this reaction was limited to only a small portion of the core, and the blast was largely contained by the reactor itself. Still, this accident spewed thousands of tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere causing health defects for the people of Pripyat and resulting in an exclusion zone of over one thousand square miles. Today, more recent events like the seven mile island incident and the Fukushima Daiichi disaster keep the fear of nuclear reactors kindled, and slows the expansion of nuclear energy. However the threat of a nuclear meltdown occurring in a LFTR is almost none for several reasons. First, LFTRs operate at substantially lower temperatures than conventional reactors. With Uranium reactors the internal core temperature must be around 1000 degrees kelvin (1300 Fahrenheit) in order to get the Uranium to start firing off neutrons, whereas LFTRs operate at about 600 degrees kelvin (626 Fahrenheit). Obviously, the Thorium reactors can produce energy at a much more manageable temperature, but the real advantage to these reactors is the lack of pressure needed in the reaction. The most common Uranium reactors have to keep water in the reactor core at 150atm of pressure, or 150 times the pressure you feel on the surface of the earth. LFTRs on the other hand, produce energy at regular atmospheric pressure. This is good, because it means that the reactor won't pop if there's a problem. Malfunctions in the coolant systems of Uranium reactors cause the core to overheat and then burst like a 1000 degree radioactive balloon, but Thorium reactors in the event of a coolant failure wouldn't detonate in any way. Even if they could, radiation from a Thorium reaction is not harmful to humans. LTFRs produce what's known as Alpha wave radiation, these alpha particles lose their kinetic energy after travelling through a few centimeters of air due to a short mean free path. These particles lose their energy so quickly that they can be effectively shielded by a piece of paper, and even if not shielded these particles cannot penetrate the epidermis. This means that Thorium reactors have the clear advantage over Uranium in the field of safety, because radiation from LFTRs is not harmful to humans.

Concerning Fusion

Concerning Fusion

In his 2009 TED discussion, Professor Steven Cowley of the Imperial College in London painted his picture for the future of energy production across the globe. In this projection, Cowley explains that "the perfect energy source is one that doesn't take up much space, has a virtually inexhaustible supply, is safe, doesn't put any carbon into the atmosphere, doesn't leave any long-lived radioactive waste: it's fusion" This hypothesis certainly stands to be valid as, empirically, fusion power stands to offer the planet a bounty of non-hydro-carbonaceous energy. However Cowley also concedes that the world is under the ever constant and increasingly problematic constraint of time. He outlines that there are "perhaps 100 years of fossil fuels left" and concludes his talk with an uncertain date for the development of functional fusion power production "sometime in the 2030s" Here is where my issue with Cowley's energy solution arises: Essentially, pushing for an unconfirmed energy solution that will not be in prototype stages until a fourth of the one hundred year fossil fuel burnout deadline is gone, is frankly too large of a chance for this planet to take. Thus, I propose an alternative nuclear solution to the globe's energy problems. One that operates on environmentally sound, confirmed energy production technology, but lies on the other end of the nuclear energy spectrum in the realm of nuclear fission.

In the 1940's the United States Senate gathered the top nuclear physicists in the nation and asked them what their preferred method for nuclear fission energy was. These scientists, members of the newly created Institute for Nuclear Studies, opted for a liberally controlled research program dedicated to the creation of clean nuclear power, fueled by Thorium (Thorium has an abundance of positives, see Mike Conley's "The Thorium Paradigm"). Upon realizing Thorium's lack of explosive applications, the United States Department of Defense attacked the McMahon Bill, which favored the scientists perspective, on the grounds that the bill did not have enough control on confidential United States nuclear secrets. The McMahon Bill was replaced with Truman's signing of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which gave more oversight and control to the United States Department of Defense, which subsequently pushed for the use of Uranium and Plutonium in nuclear energy production, because the enrichment of these elements during nuclear fission yields isotopes that can be harnessed within nuclear weapons (hence the Department of Defense's interest in the matter). Yet in the modern age the world must once again look toward nuclear energy and rather than attempting to develop a new type of energy as Cowley suggests, global leaders must remember the scientist's initial recommendation and make some improvements. By combining the vast technological advancements of the modern age with previously existing Thorium production ideas, nuclear physicists have developed a safe nuclear power plant which stands to produce all of the world's conventional grid energy much sooner than Cowley's fusion dreams. 

It seems a ridiculous premise, clean nuclear energy, no nuclear bombs, and no harmful waste? Such things must only exist in science fiction right? Not at all. Adapting Molten Salt Fuel reactors has led to the development of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR, pronounced 'lifter') These reactors operate at lower temperatures than conventional reactors, can recycle over 90% of waste produced, and produce minimal amounts of alpha wave radioactive waste which is not harmful to humans, plus this radioactive waste decays to a non radioactive isotope in 300 years, as opposed to the 2500+ years of Uranium and Plutonium. Furthermore, LFTRs can be powered by existing radioactive waste and nuclear warhead cores, cleaning the world of 60 years of dirty nuclear power. Plus, these reactors are already being developed, not only by the Chinese Thorium MSR project (currently developing Two reactors, one to be operational in 2015 and one in 2017) but also by private firms like Filbe Energy, which not only coined LFTRs as an energy source in 2006, but also worked jointly with the Thorium Energy Generation Pty. Limited, and developed a LFTR prototype in 2011. Clearly, this energy is already taking off the ground and propelling the world into a cleaner, brighter future of energy much sooner than Cowley's fusion concepts ever could. 

Although Professor Cowley's plans certainly uphold a merit-able goal, he is overconfident in his prediction that nuclear fusion is the absolute future for energy production in the world. However his idea for nuclear fusion is of course commendable, and I'd support extensive research into the matter as, long term, fusion production is a valid means of energy production. But the world's consumption problem is one that must be dealt with on the short term, and LFTRs stand to be operational within the decade. Cowley described a "problem with power in the next five years" in 2009, and Thorium is already working to fix that issue on a much shorter timeline than fusion. When examining the future of energy production, its clear that there is definitely a place for fusion, but the timeline for development is too long to be acceptable as a solution to current crises. As the world is darkened by rampant energy consumption, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are the beacon to lead the planet into a glowing future.

About Me

About Me

My name is Avery Reinhart, currently a senior at Spring Woods High school. In the fall I'll be attending the University of North Texas for a dual major in Political Science, Macroeconomics, and a minor in Business. The purposes of this blog are to discuss topics pertaining to physics for an exam grade in my AP Physics B course. Hopefully, in reading these posts your curiosity will be piqued, your ideologies will be strained, and you'll be able to make more informed rational decisions about the vast Universe we tiny humans inhabit. 

To map out an itinerary for this assignment, I'd say that many of my posts will be either argumentative pieces about my opinion on new physics discoveries, and informative pieces on Universal anomalies and advancements in astrophysical observations. Space, occupying both a large part of our Universe and a large part of my interests will most likely be heavily featured in the coming posts.

Thanks!

Avery Reinhart