Skip navigation

Tag Archives: physics

Based on the overwhelming success of this blog’s last competition (a grand total of 1.5 entries, one of which was mine), I’ve decided to launch a new one. Without further ado, here’s the brief:


Contestants must come up with a marketing slogan/tagline for some kind of physical phenomenon, as though it were a product that could be sold to customers.

Marks will be awarded for:

– the degree to which phenomena are related to actual products/taglines/marketing stereotypes;

– the ability to highlight obscure phenomena or to present a novel view on more commonplace phenomena;

– and finally, for humour, too. 


The prize? Get ready for this: the winner gets… to laugh at the losers. No, seriously!

Anyway, since my entries are likely to be the only ones, I’ve decided to come up with three. Here they are:

Oh, I would SO buy that.


Hmm, there's gotta be a catch. Usually it's the unreliable products that have long warranty periods...

And finally, my favourite:

For a short explanation of how optical interference makes bubbles pretty, click here.

For details on the proton-proton chain reaction and on Cherenkov radiation, click here, and here respectively.


We all know that the Ancient Greeks thought everything in the universe was made up of four indivisible elements: Earth, Air, Water and Fire. And we all snigger superciliously at their ignorance, because we all also know that Earth and Air are mixtures, pure Water is a compound, and Fire is – wait, what is Fire?

If you were ever curious enough to ask that question, there is a significant chance that you received one of the following incorrect answers:

1. Fire is pure energy. I always found it pretty hard to wrap my head around this idea. I mean, what exactly is “pure energy”? Mass times the speed of light squared?

Well, okay, I suppose light and heat could plausibly be suggested as being forms of “pure energy”, but they both can be understood in terms that go a bit further that just “pure energy”. Light is often well described as an electromagnetic wave, and heat can be described as the stored kinetic and potential energy of atoms and molecules. In contrast, if we called fire “pure energy” and just left it at that, we would really just be saying that we had no idea what it was.

2. Fire is a plasma. This answer isn’t actually necessarily wrong – fire can create a plasma. However, the fires most of us think of when we ask the question (candle flames, forest fires, burning buildings, Molotov cocktails, etc) almost never do create a plasma. You can be pretty sure of this because these ordinary fires are not affected by electricity or magnetism. A plasma – an ionized gas – would be affected by both.

Now that we’ve got those out of the way, let’s look at the correct answer to the question What is Fire?

Fire is a mixture of incandescent matter. 

Nice, simple, one-line answer, isn’t it? I wanted to give you that right up front, so you don’t get a little distracted by some of the complicating details we’ll go into next.


Here’s the first of them. A fire can exist only in the presence of these four ingredients: heat, fuel, oxygen and a chain reaction. The fires you see around you are nearly all created during a combustion reaction between an organic compound (the fuel – an example would be the butane in your lighter) and oxygen. However, these reactions don’t usually start spontaneously – you need to provide heat to the fuel-oxygen mixture to get them started. Once the reaction gets started though, it often releases enough heat to keep itself going until all the fuel/oxygen is used up. Thus, a chain reaction keeps the fire going.

The four key ingredients in any fire are eloquently summed up by the following diagram, called the fire tetrahedron:

We now know much more than we did when we first asked the question. Here’s a quick interim summary: Under special conditions, a fuel/oxygen mixture reacts in a self-sustaining way to release incandescent matter (both gases and un-combusted solids like soot) that we perceive as fire. There’s just one last thing we need to clear up: what exactly does incandescent mean?


Once again, let’s keep things simple. We’ll start with the fact that anything that has a temperature above absolute zero (0 Kelvin, or -273 degrees Celsius) is emitting electromagnetic radiation in a process called thermal radiation. Why? Because all matter consists of charged particles (e.g. electrons and protons), and when you accelerate a charged particle, it gives off electromagnetic radiation (see Larmour Formula).  So who’s accelerating the atoms? The temperature is – when a body gains heat, its atoms/molecules begin to move about randomly (in fact, this is part of the definition of temperature), bumping into one another, and thus causing acceleration of charges.

Right, so everything around you is emitting thermal radiation in some area of the electromagnetic spectrum. The point I’m trying to get to is that some of that thermal radiation is in fact sending out visible light – and that is called incandescence. Tungsten filament bulbs work by heating tungsten to the point where its thermal radiation is in the form of visible light – i.e., by incandescence. (By the way, fluorescent lights work in a very different, and fascinating way, but let’s save that story for later). The flames in ordinary fires also give off light through incandescence.

Well, there you have it. Fire is a mixture of incandescent matter. You may now go back to mocking Aristotle.

Oh, one last thing, though: a little treat for having stuck around this long. Below is an image of a candle in space. As you’ll notice, it’s flame is pretty different from the ones we’re used to. It’s perfectly spherical, because in microgravity, there’s no “up” for the hot gases to go to, and they spread equally in all directions.

In a microgravity environment, a flame is spherical in shape

Wanna know how little physics you know?

Ever wondered how little sense cutting-edge physics research would make to a layperson like you or me? (I’m assuming that you don’t have a PhD in physics; if I’m wrong, please let me know, because – well, it would be pretty cool if there were any Physics PhDs reading this blog.) Well, find out now! – by playing arXiv Vs. snarXiv, a game in which you’re asked to choose which of two titles belongs to an actual research paper in physics and which one is made up.

Even though it’s sometimes pretty easy to get the answer right (hint: research papers in any science very rarely have titles that are just two or three words long), try to concentrate on the fact that you (and I) don’t have any clue what a lot of the words and concepts in the actual physics papers’ titles mean.

Just so you know (and learn something out of this endeavour), the arXiv (pronounced “archive”; the X represents the Greek letter “chi”)  is an archive for electronic pre-prints (i.e. not-yet peer reviewed drafts) of scientific papers in the fields of mathematics, physics, astronomy, computer science, quantitative biology and statistics.

The snarXiv, according to its creator, “only gen­er­ates tan­ta­liz­ing titles and abstracts at the moment, while the arXiv deliv­ers match­ing papers as well.” Here are the uses he suggests for the site:

  • If you’re a grad­u­ate stu­dent, gloomily read through the abstracts, think­ing to your­self that you don’t under­stand papers on the real arXiv any better.
  • If you’re a post-doc, reload until you find some­thing to work on.
  • If you’re a pro­fes­sor, get really excited when a paper claims to solve the hier­ar­chy prob­lem, the lit­tle hier­ar­chy prob­lem, the mu prob­lem, and the con­fine­ment prob­lem. Then expe­ri­ence pro­found disappointment.
  • If you’re a famous physi­cist, keep reload­ing until you see your name on some­thing, then claim credit for it.
  • Every­one else should play arXiv vs. snarXiv.
arXiv vs. snarXiv is fun for a while (not for too long, though), and the game comes up with interesting assessments of your success at guessing. For example, there’s “Worse than a monkey” and “Nobel Prize winner” (that’s for 100% accuracy).