Class Project

Alex Titus
Physics 1010
Part 1: Star Identification:
1) Its name
2) Distance from Earth in light years (a light year is how far light can travel
through the vacuum of space moving at 670 million miles per hour for a year.
By everyday standards a light year is an enormous distance)
3) When the light from the star now visible in the skies of Earth actually left
the star (if a star is 10 light years away its light now visible in the skies of
Earth left that star 10 years ago in 2002)
4) Its size compared to the Sun (you can do the comparison using the stars
radius to the Suns radius or the stars volume to the Suns volume)
5) The stars luminosity compared to the Sun (luminosity is a measure of
brightness)
You can list this information in tabular form star by star. A little extra credit
will be available for identifying the coal sack in the photo. This has been
demonstrated in the photo below
 The First star I chose is the blue colored subgiant star Zeta Centauri (proper name Alnair)
and its reference name in the Hippacros Star Catalogue is HIP68002. It is roughly 362.40 light
years away from Earth and the light from the star that is now visible in the sky is 50,000 years
from now. It has been calculated as 5.49 times bigger than the Sun and has an estimated radius of
3,816,938.76 km with the luminosity of 7,100 suns.
The second star chosen was Eta Centauri which is a blue eclipsing binary system main
sequence dwarf star and its reference name in the Hippacros Star Catalogue is HIP1352. This star
is 296.51 light years away from Earth and the light from the star that is now visible in the sky is
50,000 years from now. It is calculated that it is 5.17 times bigger than the sun with an estimated
radius of 695,800 km. The luminosity of Eta Centauri is 5,550 suns.
The third star chosen was Delta Centauri (Delta Cen, Ma Wei), also known as HD105435
in the Hippacros Star Catalogue. This star is 407.70 light years away from Earth and has an
estimated radius of 5,381,304.65 km which is 7.73 times bigger than the sun. The visibility from
Earth is also 50,000 years from now and has a luminosity of 5,129 suns.
The fourth star I picked is Epsilon Centauri, reference name HIP66657 in the Hippacros
Star Catalogue, is 407.70 light years away from Earth. This star is 5.51 times bigger than our sun
at an estimated radius of 3,834,557.81 km with the visibility in the sky being 50,000 years form
Earth. The luminosity calculated is 15,217 suns, the brightest of the 4 stars chosen.
Part 2: Equation Analysis:
Answer or do the following:
Question 1: Find out what the things in this equation (using your book or a
net search will do it) are and identify them as either variables or constants.
Question 2: What is the size of c2?
Question 3: Are mass and energy related? Answer yes or no and then
provide a brief explanation of your answer based on the analysis of the
equation.
Question 4: Analyze the statement: if it is possible to change mass into
energy a little bit of mass could produce a lot of energy. Is it true or not?
Provide a brief explanation based on your analysis of the equation

The first equation analyzed is E = mc2, E being energy, m being mass and c is the speed
of light (3.00x108 m/s). The speed of light in a vacuum is 186282 miles per second (299792
kilometers per second). C being a constant while mass and energy are the variables. Mass and
energy are inversely related, if one changes then the other measurement changes. The statement
if it is possible to change mass into energy a little bit of mass could produce a lot of energy, is
not true. If that were true the entire equation E = mc2 would be incorrect. If mass is a smaller
amount than energy is a smaller amount.
Equation 2: d = gt2/2
Question 5. Which of the following statements do you agree with and why?
Use the equation to support your answer (you can also refer to the learning
from equations module files).
a) heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects
b) objects fall at the same speed (if no air resistance) and weight doesnt
matter.
The second equation, d = gt2/2, where d is distance, g is acceleration of gravity at Earths
surface and t is time the objects has been falling. With this equation I agree with statement b
objects fall at the same speed (if no air resistance) and weight doesnt matter. There is no mass in
the equation proving that it is not a factor when objects fall.

Equation 3: v = gt
Question 6: Which of the following statements do you agree with and why?
Use the equation to support your answer (you can also refer to the learning
from equations module files).
c) heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects
d) objects fall at the same speed (if no air resistance) and weight doesnt
matter.
Question 7: For most of recorded history, people thought that heavy objects
naturally and under all conditions fall faster than lighter objects. Why did it
take us so long to realize the true state of affairs?
Question 8: The Earths gravity DOES exert a greater force on heavier
objects than lighter ones (these forces are called weight). However, with no
air resistance objects fall at the same speed in a given gravity field. The
weight difference can be thousands of pounds to one and the objects still fall
at the same speed. What physical property of mass compensates for the
difference in applied forces?
The third equation, v = gt, v = velocity of a falling object if released from rest (no air
resistance), g = acceleration of gravity at Earths surface, and t = time the object has been falling.
I would agree with statement b again claiming the same thing which is mass is not a factor in the
equation giving no change to falling speed. For most of recorded history, people thought that
heavy objects naturally and under all conditions fall faster than lighter objects. It took us a long
time to realize the real truth because we were not testing this fact without air resistance, we were
assuming it wasnt a factor and claiming that heaver objects fell faster than lighter ones.
Regarding question 8, when it comes to the difference in applied forces that mass compensates
for, the answer is inertia.
Equation 4: e = 1 Tcold/Thot
This is the equation for the efficiency of a heat engine (your car is a heat
engine unless you have an electric model). An e = 1 is 100% efficiency,
meaning 100% of the energy gets used to do what you want to do with no
wasted, unrecoverable energy. An e = 0 is an efficiency of zero with none
of the energy going to what you want to do and all of the energy being
wasted or in unrecoverable forms.
The temperatures in this equation are in the Kelvin scale where the lowest
temperature is 0 degrees. There are no negative temperatures in the Kelvin
scale. A temperature we might encounter on Earth would be about 300
degrees Kelvin.
Question 9: Is it possible to achieve 100% efficiency, in theory, by lowering
the temperature of the environment surrounding the heat engine (Tcold)? Why
or why not?
Question 10: Is it possible, in practice, to achieve 100% efficiency by
lowering the temperature of the environment surrounding the heat engine
(Tcold)? Why or why not?
Question 11: Is it possible to achieve 100% efficiency, in theory, by raising
the internal operating temperature of the heat engine (Thot)? Why or why not?
Question 12: Is it possible to achieve 100% efficiency, in practice, by
raising the internal operating temperature of the heat engine (Thot)? Why or
why not?
Question 13: If your car is not electric, it is a heat engine and is subject to
the efficiency equation. Is it possible to build a car, using any kind of burning
fuel, that is 100% efficient? Explain.
 The forth equation, e = 1 Tcold/Thot, e is the efficiency of energy use, Tcold is the
temperature of the environment surrounding the heat engine, and Thot is the internal operating
temperature of the engine. In theory, yes we can achieve 100% efficiency, by using the equation
and lowering the Tcold to 0, makes e = 1 or 100% efficiency. However, in practice we cant do that
because we cannot maintain the temperature at absolute zero. When it comes to raising the
internal operating temperature of the heat engine, in theory, we can put Thot = infinity, making e=
Thot/infinity = 1 or 100%. Doing this in practice, is not a capable thing because we cannot handle
an infinite amount of heat. Using this equation again, to figure out if it is possible to build a car
using any kind of burning fuel, asking if it can be 100% efficient. We find that the answer is no,
because burning any kind of fuel cant convert the total mass of the fuel to energy, regarding
E=mc^2, failure to convert some of the mass makes it not completely efficient.

Part 3: Learning about a Law of Physics

Pick any Law or Principle of Physics in your textbook and:

1. Give me an explanation of what it is and what it means.

One of the laws of physics is Newtons first law of motion or law of inertia. It states, an object at
rest stays at rest and on object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and the same
direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
2. Give me 3 examples in the real world involving the law or principle.
A) When a car is in motion at 50m.p.h. and hits a stationary wall, if the driver is not wearing a
seatbelt they will crash through the windshield at 30m/p/h.
B) If a there was a roller coaster with a straight track that went on forever and didnt have air
resistance and the track had no end, it would continue at the same speed until stopped by an
unbalanced force, like a brick wall.
C) When you drop a ball, if there was no ground to stop it, it would continue to fall for eternity.

Part 4: Explanation of Fermis Paradox and possible resolution

This involves the possible existence of alien life in the Universe. A net search should bring up
some immediate information on the subject.
1. Clearly explain what this paradox involves and why it is a paradox.
2. List and briefly explain (like in a paragraph for each) 4 possible resolutions to the paradox.

The Fermis Paradox, which is named after physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent
contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates for the existence of
extraterrestrial civilizations. First to understand this, we need to understand paradox, this is a
seemingly absurd statement or proposition that when investigated or explained my prove to be
well founded or true. The paradox of alien life is the fact that with the billions of stars in the
galaxy that are similar to the sun and many of them are billions of years older than Earth. There
is a high probability that at least some of these stars have Earth-like planets that harbor
intelligent life. The civilizations that could exist might develop interstellar travel, which we are
investigating now.
A) The first resolution that comes to mind is the fact of how big space is. If it is difficult for
us to travel in space, it is probably just as difficult for another intelligent species to travel
in space. For example, the Voyager 1 has traveled more than 11 billion miles since it was
launched 36 years ago and it has only traveled to the outer reaches of our solar system.
We have discovered over 500 solar systems in the Milky Way galaxy and there is
potential for tens of billions of solar systems to be in our galaxy alone. How asinine is it
 to think that some other beings are considerably more advanced than us and already know
how to travel through the galaxy, and on top of that, they found our 1 planet with life. It is
like finding a needle in a haystack, sure there is a needle in there but it is going to take a
hell of a long time to find it.

B) A second way of looking at this is that intelligent life does exist, they are extremely more
advanced than mankind, and are simply choosing not to travel to our planet. They could
have already found us and decided we are too new of a species to contact or intervene
with and want to let us continue our evolutionary path. I think this is giving the
extraterrestrial life a little too much credit if you ask me, but none the less, it is still a
theory.

C) A third theory is that aliens are out there and in the exact same boat as us, in the sense
that we have not figured out a way to travel through space. Maybe their planet is still on
one of the first evolutionary stages and havent evolved enough to have technology to do
so or they could be trying to figure out ways to contact other intelligent beings like
themselves and are just taking the time necessary to develop such technology.

D) A fourth way of looking at extraterrestrial life is that they are a completely different
species than anything we could imagine here on Earth. Their planet could be completely
opposite than ours, where they inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. They might be
intelligent beings, but not in the sense that we are thinking, they might be isolating
themselves and have no desire to travel outside their world. The programming they could
have might not create that type of thinking or understanding.

References

https://www.universeguide.com/star/zetacentauri
https://www.universeguide.com/star/etacentauri
https://www.universeguide.com/star/deltacentauri
https://www.universeguide.com/star/epsiloncentauri