“The only use for an atomic bomb is to keep somebody else from using one.”                                                                                                                                                    – George Wald

A few months ago, the first article of this Nuclear Weapons Debate series was posted, which you can read here – The Nuclear Weapons Debate Part 1 -What are they?

This time, let’s talk about a certain endeavour, taken up by certain accomplished people, to rival a certain fascist German political party, that has revolutionized the world we live in.

The Manhattan Project was a research and development project based in the United States which aimed to create the world’s first nuclear weapons. But it wasn’t any ordinary scientific quest – the project was fraught with violence, espionage, misery, strategy, uneasiness, and plenty of determination. It took place during World War II – I guess that explains a lot. When Hitler’s around, nothing’s like it seems.

In 1938, German physicists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann achieved a daunting task – they managed to split the uranium atom. This greatly increased the possibility of the Germans developing an atomic bomb.

Several of the refugees who came to America to escape from Nazi Germany and other fascist countries were scientists. They feared, knowing of Germany’s discovery, that the Nazis would perfect an atomic bomb, which would spell definite disaster for the Allies of WWII. Scientists like Enrico Fermi warned US government officials of this.

The fears of the refugee scientists were confirmed by the Einstein-Szilard letter, a letter drafted by Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner and signed by Albert Einstein, which was then sent to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Finally, the issues raised by the scientists were taken seriously. Although progress was quite slow, several government conferences and meetings were set up, and USA decided that the creation of the atomic bomb was inevitable; they just had to beat the Germans to it.

In 1941, the Office of Scientific Research and Development was created, with Vannevar Bush as director. The S-1 uranium committee was established to oversee the nation’s foray into nuclear weapons development.

The US Army Corps of Engineers was in charge of the construction of the various laboratories and manufacturing facilities where the scientists could work. The Corps’ Manhattan District was in charge of managing the construction, as most of the research had been done in Manhattan’s Columbia University. The Army’s part of the project was initially referred to as ‘Development of Substitute Materials’, but after concerns that it would draw attention, the name changed. Usually, the Army’s engineer districts used the name of the city in which they were located, hence the Army’s part of the project was termed the Manhattan Engineering District. Soon, ‘Manhattan’ became the commonly used term for the project – surprisingly enough, as it spanned an entire country and included several others as well.

It came to USA’s awareness that the British were working on a similar nuclear weapons development project. They realised that with the collaborative efforts of both these Allied nations, the production of the atomic bomb would advance at a faster rate. Ideas could be shared, and based on those ideas, they could amend their existing project. Thus, Harold Urey and several of his colleagues visited England, and a cooperative project was decided upon. Several British scientists came to USA to join the project. Canada also agreed to a joint effort with the Americans.

To create an atomic bomb, the Americans needed to separate the two isotopes uranium-235 and uranium-238 from each other. In order to quicken the process so that a solution could be reached as soon as possible, three different techniques were attempted to achieve the aforementioned isotope separation. The team at the University of California, Berkeley investigated electromagnetic separation, Columbia University studied gaseous diffusion, and the Carnegie Institute at Washington looked into thermal diffusion.

These methods produced varying degrees of success, but success nonetheless. Thus, a large tract of land was cleared as a production site for the Manhattan Project near Knoxville, Tennessee. The production facility was known as Clinton Engineer Works, and the large area of land where the production took place, and remained a secret from the rest of the world, later became the city of Oak Ridge.

Just imagine. An entire city created, to make a weapon that destroyed.

Another tract was cleared near the Columbia River in Washington, called the Hanford Site. Here, the Hanford Engineer Works was established as the plutonium production facility.

The technology of the nuclear reactor itself was being looked into, with Harold Urey researching the idea of ‘heavy water’ – water which contains a large quantity of the hydrogen isotope deuterium, rather than the more common protium.  Meanwhile, Arthur Compton studied the usage of graphite to control the speed of fast neutrons, a  concept that is still used to this day.

Leslie Groves was an officer of the US Army Corps of Engineers, who later became the overall director of the project. Groves needed someone to be the head of Project Y, the group that would design and build the bomb itself. One of the scientists, Arthur Compton, recommended J. Robert Oppenheimer, a distinguished physics professor at UC Berkeley, for the job. In 1943, Oppenheimer joined the Manhattan Project – and remains a legend in the minds of many even today.

The location of Project Y had to be in a highly remote area. After much consideration, the site of Y was chosen to be an isolated mesa in Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Uranium was the key raw material for the project. It was fuel for the reactors, could be transformed into plutonium, and used in the atomic bomb itself. After production began, uranium was extracted from its ore and refined, isotopes were separated using the various aforementioned processes.

Similar processes were applied to plutonium, which was usually obtained by bombarding uranium with neutrons. To produce the fissionable plutonium-239, uranium-238 had to undergo nuclear transmutation. In this process, isotopes of elements are converted into other isotopes, by modifying the number of protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus. This method, developed in the metallurgical laboratory of the University of Chicago, created plutonium-239, which was a key component in the production of nuclear weapons.

The Manhattan Project had become a serious, full-fledged endeavour. Approximately 130,000 workers were hired to top-secret facilities, where people worked tirelessly at producing an atomic bomb. The original fund of $6000 that was allocated for the Manhattan Project grew to become 2 billion dollars.

By 1945, enough plutonium-239 had been produced for a nuclear explosion.  Weapons development had reached a significant point, where it was actually feasible to schedule a field test for the atomic bomb. The original plan was a controlled fizzle, but Oppenheimer insisted on a full-fledged test for an accurate result.

However, preparing such a test was an extremely difficult task. Complex equipment needed to be arranged at the appropriate places so that a foolproof diagnosis of the bomb’s efficacy could be completed.

Kenneth Bainbridge, a professor of physics at Harvard, was in charge of preparing for the test. He chose the bombing range near the Alamogordo Air Base – 120 miles from Alburqueque, New Mexico – as the location for the test. It was codenamed Trinity.

A lot of work had been put into the weapon design. The fissionable material produced at the plants had to be reduced to a metal and the metal had to be made into the required shape.

For a nuclear explosion to take place, fissionable material had to be brought together rapidly to form a super-critical mass. The weapon that had been created thus used a method of implosion to detonate. Through implosion, a sub-critical mass of plutonium-239 could be made into a super-critical mass that explodes. The sub-critical plutonium-239 was placed in a spherical ‘pit’, and a shell of highly explosive material was placed around it, wired to detonators. There were also ‘lenses’ that focused the explosion inward, into the ‘pit’. When the explosives are set off, the pit of Pu-239 gets squeezed inward rapidly, increasing its density. The detonation of the explosives is strong enough to increase the density of the pit till the point where it becomes super-critical, and explodes.

 

Yup. Not an easy affair.

At 5:30 am on July 16, 1945, the first ever atomic bomb exploded, and the Trinity test was successful. It exploded with energy equivalent to 20 kilotons of trinitrotoluene [TNT.] The mushroom cloud formed by the bomb was 12.1 km in height and the explosion was heard all the way in El Paso, Texas.

A month later, two other bombs were manufactured; one using uranium-235 and the other using plutonium-239. They were called Little Boy and Fat Man. On the 6th and 9th of August, 1945, these two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as USA’s response to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour and involvement in WWII. Approximately 129,000 lives were lost.

This was the Manhattan Project – a quest by some of the greatest minds on Earth to create something truly mighty in its power. What is shocking about the project though, is that it was such a hard effort; hundreds of thousands of workers and scientists and military personnel spending countless hours on their objective. People devoting themselves to a scientific endeavour. Never have we seen such a massive collaborative effort for a scientific goal. But, that scientific goal is a device that annihilates lives and destroys everything it touches.

Is war the only successful motive? Can people not work together to create something that would benefit humanity as a whole, and not just a certain country? Nuclear energy is an absolutely awe-inspiring force, but instead of utilizing it to further our energy production requirements, we spend billions of dollars to create weapons of massive destruction [WMDs] from it.

And what did the USA do just months after developing the first ever atomic bomb? They bombed two cities. Cities with living people. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people, who may have had nothing to do with Pearl Harbour, and been completely oblivious to the Second World War – all of them killed. And all for an act of petty vengeance. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, so America responds by destroying entire cities with a weapon like no other, with the power to signal impending doom for the people of the Earth.

This reckless motive and usage tells us that the Manhattan Project was not a scientific quest, but an intellectual war. It was a race with the Nazis to create the most dastardly invention in history. It wasn’t fueled by scientific curiosity, it was fueled by an urge to go ahead of the Nazis and then destroy them. No matter how brilliant it might have been, and how many good things came of it – nuclear weapons and the Manhattan Project were fuelled by hatred, and intended to destroy.

The Manhattan Project was a great feat of science, but at the same time, misguided and immoral. Nuclear weapons are the children of science and evil, and destruction is its child. Perhaps this conflict can be best emoted by a remark made by Robert Oppenheimer after the Trinity test was completed. He said that the massive nuclear explosion had brought to his mind a line from the Bhagavad Gita, an ancient Hindu scripture. The words were:

“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

Adieu.

 

 

“There are two types of encryption: one that will prevent your sister from reading your diary and one that will prevent your government.” – Bruce Schneier

Encryption. It may seem like a term from days long past, when good ol’ Alan Turing managed to overcome the heavy encryption of Germany’s Enigma device, and in the process saved thousands of innocent lives. In the modern age, encryption and decryption is not all that intense, but it still is highly important: In fact, even more so than during World War II.

Encryption is a means of achieving data security. In this case, encryption is to do mainly with the protection of electronic devices like cellphones, computers, laptops, etc. which contain personal data or other valuable information.

In today’s world, where social media and sharing [not to mention narcissism] is extremely popular and people have countless number of messages, contacts, images and other important personal items, hacking and decrypting can be highly dangerous. It can lead to all sorts of wrong things. That’s why cellphones and other such personal gadgets are cryptographically protected with numerical keypads or thumbprint identification. This ensures that people can live their lives without the fear of their information being stolen by the wrong people.

And of course, no company does their encryption better than Apple. Apple products have secure systems, where data and information is contained within the device, to be accessed by the user only. Apple was hence renowned for its superior encryption – until now.

You may have heard of the 2015 attacks in San Bernardino, California, where 14 people were killed and 22 injured in a mass shooting and attempted bombing. The perpetrators were a Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a Muslim couple residing in the United States. After the California shootings, they were both killed by the police, having destroyed their phones prior to the attack, in case they were caught. However, Syed Farook’s office phone, an iPhone 5C, issued to him by the San Bernardino Government, was found intact.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] recovered the iPhone during their crime-busting jaunt, only to find that it was locked with a 4-digit password. A few months later, the FBI announced that they were unable to unlock the phone due to its security features and its encryption of data.

Hence, the FBI asked Apple to develop a new version of the phone’s iOS operating system and run it in the phone’s RAM, through which the security features that prohibited the FBI from accessing the phone could be disabled and all the information contained within it could be accessed. Apple declined to do any such thing.

Here is Apple’s stance on the issue. If they unlock this phone for the FBI, it would pose a serious threat to Apple’s consumers. The software could be leaked, and if that happened, any iPhone or Apple device could be hacked. Apple stated that the FBI’s request is a threat to technology companies that is seriously undermining the security of their products. Apple is known for its encryption, and now if they decrypt this iPhone, they are threatening the security of their customers by showing them that their private information can be easily accessed.

What about the FBI? Well, the FBI’s reason is blatantly obvious: national security. People have been killed and seriously injured in a shooting, which poses a threat to the security of the people. Unless they can extract enough information about the crime and its perpetrators, there is no guarantee that such an incident won’t occur again. Thus they need access to the iPhone, so that they can gain enough data to ensure the security of the people from similar crimes.

So the way we should look at it here, is that this is a case, and that there are two sides: privacy and national security. Apple wants to protect its consumers, FBI wants to protect its country.

Now of course, the US courts and judiciaries have issued several orders, all in favour of the FBI, because heck, those old dudes wouldn’t know how to make a phone call on an iPhone if their life depended on it. They don’t get the whole privacy in technology thing. But security is something they can understand. Although this is quite paradoxical, seeing as Apple’s stance also is simply to assure the security of its consumers. Nonetheless, several judicial orders have been issued, and the FBI has taken this matter not just to court, but the entire general public.

On the 28th of March, 2016, the FBI announced that a third party had helped them unlock the iPhone, and the case was dropped for good. That’s great news… right?

Wrong.

Firstly, the whole ‘third party hacking the iPhone’ makes this whole case seem like a silly argument. FBI’s unexpected use of a third party to hack the phone tells the general public that this entire case and dispute was unnecessary, and could have been easily avoided. Basically, the FBI created loads of drama about Apple ‘not being concerned about national security’ and threw several cases at them, but then all of a sudden, they announced that someone else helped them, and expected everybody to go home fine and dandy. The FBI cast a bad light on Apple, and then just exited the scene. It’s like that bully who gets away with beating up little kids. Not to say that Apple’s a little kid but…. okay, that was a bad analogy.

Secondly, the very fact that some ‘third party’ hacked the software of what was believed to be one of the safest, most well-encrypted devices, is horrible PR for Apple. They were the ones who created a big deal of ensuring their consumer’s security, but at the end, they just made the situation worse. This incident tells the public that any ordinary person can get through Apple’s systems. So what Apple has been trying to prevent all this while has happened because they tried to prevent it. Yup – it’s confusing.

Just a few days back, Italian architect Leonardo Fabbretti pleaded Apple to give him access to his dead son’s iPhone. This confirmed one of Apple’s worst fears. If the FBI can ask them to hack an iPhone, what’s to stop everyone else from doing the same?

There’s no real point in taking sides over this dispute, because both sides are equally at fault. One tried to over-complicate a simple situation, and so did the other.

Privacy and national security shouldn’t be mortal enemies – instead they should be dealt with hand-in-hand, as their paths are intertwined. This whole dispute was frankly a pointless, embarrassing waste of time. But it sent a solemn message: that we can never truly be safe; that even the strongest encryption can be decrypted by anyone with the talent to do so; and that the government can breach several codes of conduct that the common public sets for its various endeavours.

Apple or FBI – it matters not. In my opinion, there are two lessons to be learnt from this whole hodgepodge:

1. When the FBI tells you to do something, DO IT.
2. Stop taking weird photos of yourself on your iPhone and assuming it to be ‘private’. Unless ‘private’ means scarring selfies of your pimples being uploaded to Facebook due to an ‘accidental glitch’.

But jokes apart – the world is a weird place. Nobody’s information is really safe. And just like information, nobody’s life is really safe either. But hey – what can you do? In the words of the great Kurt Vonnegut – so it goes.

Life is good. Adieu.

 

 

 

 

“To be, or not to be: that is the question.” – William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Buckle up my friends, because things are about to get pretty intense. The below passage is unadulterated, unfiltered, honest opinions. It’s something that’s on all of our minds, and now I’m finally penning down my thoughts. Let’s get straight into it.

So, what is existence? It’s a heavy question, one that I’ve often myself tried to answer but failed at horribly.

Existence doesn’t really have a clear-cut definition, only because it’s something so enormously significant. It’s an all-encompassing thing. Existence has no classification or real meaning. It doesn’t necessarily apply to only humans, but to everything that… well, exists.

Perhaps existence can best termed as ‘being’. Just a state of being a part of the universe in a specific way.

Existence has always been something that baffles mankind – that one unanswerable question. That’s simply because every time we get an answer about existence, another question arises.

When we talk about existence, we are really talking about philosophy as well, because you cannot explore one without indirectly discovering another. Mainly because existence is sort of a study of reality. The more we question existence, the more we toy with the subtle fabric of reality.

Why do we exist? Do we really exist? What is existing? How do we know that existing is what we think it to be?  What is the point of education or development, if everything is going to fade out of existence? Isn’t everything humanity does a lie, if at the end of it, we cease to exist? Why do we do what we do? Is our existence a hoax? Are we merely puppets of an ulterior power that is toying with our minds and leading us to believe what we believe? What is death? Is death really the end of existence? What happens after death? Is death really a bad thing? Who termed it to be a bad thing? If we do not know its consequence, why are we so scared of it? Why are some people not scared of death? Is death just another stage of development in life, or is it really the end? How do we end existence? Is the point of existing to stop existing? What is God? Who created God? Who created God’s creator? Does science really exist, or is it a lie? Does scientific understanding blur reality? If everything has some explanation, what is the explanation behind that explanation? What are the smallest of smallest of smallest particles even made of? What are those made of? Should we believe in science or God? Why do we have so many opinions on God? What is the point of religion? What is the point of science? What is the Universe? What lies outside of it? If nothing lies outside of the universe, then outside of the Universe, what exists? What would non-existence look like? What is nothing? What is the point of rules? What is the point of humanity? What is our ultimate goal, if our existence dictates our past, present and future? What is time? Why do we question existence, yet believe in science and God? Is there really an explanation to anything? What is everything? What lies beyond it? What is eternity? Is there really an eternity? When will eternity end? What is the meaning of life? What is the point of it all?

Yup. It can get a bit messy.

Questioning existence unlocks the deepest boundaries of our mind. Many a time, it can be quite painful and troublesome. When that happens, you’re undergoing an existential crisis.

An existential crisis is, as the name suggests, a serious interrogation of existence. It often occurs due to psychological trauma, marriage, separation, major loss, the death of a loved one, a life-threatening experience, a new love partner, psychoactive drug use, adult children leaving home, reaching a personally significant age (turning 16, turning 40, etc.), so on and so forth.

Such grief, such a tumultuous whirlwind of emotions, leads us to question the foundations of our being in a highly negative way. We feel isolated, we feel that our life has been pointless, we think a bit too much about mortality which leads to insomnia and severe psychological trauma. Several people even commit suicide during an existential crisis.

And that is the sheer power of existence. A word with no absolute meaning, but one with awesome power to warp reality, our minds and destroy everything we thought prior to the moment.

That’s why existence isn’t something to be taken lightly. Take pride in your existence no matter what you do, say, think or become. Because existence, though marvellously complicated and inexplicable, can often be simply beautiful. Many a time, existence reminds us of how insignificant we are in this universe.

And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Life is good. Adieu.

 

 

“Hosting the Oscars is much like making love to a woman. It’s something I only get to do when Billy Crystal is out of town.” – Steve Martin

Okay, it’s here. You’ve waited and waited and waited – or should I say, TV networks have advertised and advertised and advertised – for this moment. And it’s D-Day now. In 9 hours, we will unleash the Academy Awards 2016.

But before we get to the good stuff, let’s really understand what’s going on here. Why is there so much hype only for the Oscars? How come very few people care about the Golden Globes? How come the BAFTAs and SAG Awards happen every year and yet, nobody even knows… or cares?

Well, if you were hoping for a huge, logical explanation, it’s a far cry from the truth. The Oscars are more prestigious and famous than other film awards because…. well, because. There are a variety of reasons that don’t completely give us the answer, but they are significant.

Firstly, the Oscars are older than the others. So it’s sort of an ‘old is gold’ theory here. The other awards came later, and hence were diminished in fame due to the existence of the Oscars, which were already famous.

Secondly, the Oscars are more… interesting. For starters, why the term ‘Oscar’? Why is it called that? The popularly acknowledged explanation is that when Academy Award librarian and future Director of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Margaret Herrick first saw the statue in 1931, she said that it looked like her Uncle Oscar. And let’s just say the name caught on.

I mean, I don’t see the Golden Globes having an affectionate nickname. So the score’s 2-0.

Finally, and this is quite a touchy point, the Oscars are of a better quality. Maybe it’s just me, but the Oscars always captures the spirit of the viewer. Many a time, it gets you invested in a film you’ve neither seen nor heard of. Other award shows don’t really have that charisma. Then there is the overall show itself. The Oscar hosts are more memorable, more celebrities turn up at the Oscars [well, not this year and you know why], and on a more intricate note, the speeches are better. Seriously, they are. And there is also the whole timing of the event. The Golden Globes of 2016 was greatly rushed and I didn’t quite feel it. But with the almost 4-hour long Oscars, I’m pretty sure I will.

But of course, this may be just because of the fame of the Oscars itself, which leads to it holding an image in our minds of a greater quality than other awards shows. But hey – who cares.

Now, the good stuff. The movies. The epitome of the Oscars. Come hell or high water, when all is said and done, it’s the movies that really matter. And 2015-16 was a great year for film. I urgently request you to binge-watch any Oscar-nominated movies you haven’t seen. Probably start with Spotlight or The Revenant. You won’t get any sleep, but it’ll be worth it.

So, without further ado, here are my predictions, or rather my opinions, for which movies will go big at the 2016 Academy Awards :-

1. Best Production Design – Mad Max: Fury Road
2. Best Documentary, Short Subject – Body Team 12
3. Best Short Film, Animated – World of Tomorrow
4. Best Short Film, Live Action – Ave Maria
5. Best Sound Mixing – The Revenant
6. Best Sound Editing – The Revenant
7. Best Makeup and Hair-styling – Mad Max: Fury Road
8. Best Costume Design – Mad Max: Fury Road
9. Best Cinematography – The Revenant
10. Best Visual Effects – Star Wars: The Force Awakens [Better believe it, Academy!]
11. Best Original Score – The Hateful Eight
12. Best Original Song – “Til It Happens To You” from The Hunting Ground
13. Best Film Editing – Mad Max: Fury Road
14. Best Documentary Feature – Amy
15. Best Foreign Language Film – Son of Saul
16. Best Animated Feature – Inside Out [Without a doubt]
17. Best Original Screenplay – Spotlight
18. Best Adapted Screenplay – The Big Short
19. Best Supporting Actress – Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl. With her two breakthroughs in Ex Machina and The Danish Girl, Alicia Vikander is likely to win, although she faces stiff competition from Kate Winslet in Steve Jobs.
20. Best Supporting Actor – Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies. Bridge of Spies was a great but underrated movie, and it deserves at least one Oscar, and this is the most likely category. Spielberg wasn’t even nominated for Best Director! Mark Rylance does have a rival in Sylvester Stallone for Creed.
21. Best Actress – Brie Larson, Room. Brie Larson really deserves it for her emotional performance in Room. It would be a pity if JLaw snagged the Oscar again.
22. Best Actor – Leonardo diCaprio, The Revenant. LEO! LEO! LEO! Leo all the way, baby. The Oscars would probably be hated worldwide if Leo didn’t get this much deserved award for his scintillating performance in The Revenant. And the guy has been waiting a looooong time.
23. Best Director – Alejandro González Iñárritu, The Revenant. Alejandro Gonza- let’s just stick with Alex – won the Oscar last year for Birdman, and he can do it this time too for The Revenant. George Miller is another likely candidate for Mad Max: Fury Road.
24. Best Picture – SPOTLIGHT. Yup. The Academy does love upsets, as it has proven last time with Birdman edging out over Boyhood. Only this time, the award is going to go against Iñárritu’s liking, with The Revenant finishing a close second. In my opinion, last year, Boyhood was better than Birdman. And this time, Spotlight is better than The Revenant. It will be a close battle, though. But of course, The Revenant has a whole lot of hype and more people think it deserves Best Picture, so…Well, we shall see.

So there you go – a huge sum-up of the Oscars 2016. One thing I hate about the film industry is that there’s always some looming ‘problem’. Last time it was equal pay for equal work, but this time it’s something way bigger – a White Oscars. Sure, it wouldn’t hurt to have a few black nominees in there [Idris Elba was amazing in Beasts of No Nation] but the outcry over the issue has been in excess.

Anyway folks, enjoy the Oscars. And to the nominees themselves, bonne chance.

Anyway, kudos to all the future winners. And Rock the stage! (Chris Rock reference :P)

Life is good. Adieu.

“Killing Pluto was fun, but this is head and shoulders above everything else.”                                                                                                                   – Michael Brown, Caltech

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union [IAU] nullified Pluto from its status as a proper planet in the Solar System, due to the fact that it could not ‘clear the neighborhood’ around its orbit, it being only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit. Michael E Brown, a professor at Caltech, was soon hailed as the ‘man who killed Pluto’. Heck, he even wrote a book about it. [He really did – It’s called How I Killed Pluto and Why it Had it Coming. On top of that, his Twitter handle is @Pluto_killer.]

And so, for another 10 years, life went on and people came to grips with the reality that Pluto was gone for good. But then, a decade later, [rather convenient, don’t you think?] on the 20th of January, 2016, the same Michael Brown who demoted Pluto announced, along with his Caltech colleague Konstantin Batygin, that they had found near solid evidence of a new ninth planet in the Solar System.

Yup. A ninth planet. Just like that. Out of nowhere. As a matter of fact, we weren’t even searching for another planet in our Solar System. It just appeared. 

In 2014, astronomers Chad Trujillo and Scott Sheppard became the first to hypothesize a planet beyond Neptune, with some minor evidence. Soon, Caltech professors Michael Brown and Konstantin Batygin arrived and made attempts to actually refute the claims to a ninth planet. Figures. The Pluto killer had come back for more.

But instead, they found the evidence to be so strong that the refuters became the proponents of the theory of a ninth planet, Planet X, that lay in the Kuiper Belt, far away from Neptune. How was it found? Here goes.

So, the Kuiper belt is a vast expanse of asteroids, comets and dwarf planets [including Pluto.] But these researchers found that the orbits of many of the huge bodies in the Kuiper Belt were actually similar. They were just different-sized versions of each other, all in the same direction. Similar orbits, that too in such an arbitrary place involving random celestial bodies? That was no coincidence. Scientists don’t believe in coincidence.

The scientists were curious. Similar orbits require some kind of central body with a gravitational pull strong enough to make such similarities. The Kuiper Belt itself did not have enough mass and wasn’t strong enough to pull its surroundings. So, after much experimenting, the scientists came to the conclusion that there was indeed a planet that held the Kuiper Belt bodies in place and revolved around the Sun, and gave an answer to the bodies having similar orbits and lying in the same plane and direction.

You may say, Oh, that’s just a shot in the dark made to sound like something big. The similar orbit phenomenon could be anything. The Pluto-killer’s probably trying to apologise to us for his murder of Pluto. But no. The mathematics checks out. The measurements, the theorized impressions, they all work. And unlike Pluto, Planet X has the requirements to be dubbed a ‘planet’, as per the IAU:

1. It is in orbit around the Sun.
2. It has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium [Basically, it’s almost round in shape.]
3. It has ‘cleared the neighbourhood’ around its orbit unlike Pluto, i.e., it has a strong         dominant gravitational pull and there are no other bodies of comparable size or                 gravitational pull under its influence.

So there you have it. Planet 9. After a detailed scientific analysis of this discovery, scientists have found some properties of Planet 9 with respect to the Solar System –

1. It has about 10 times the mass of Earth and about 4 times the diameter, but it is smaller in size to Neptune. Greater distance doesn’t mean greater size, folks!
2. It is about 60 billion miles from the Sun and has a highly elliptical orbit.
3. It is quite similar in properties and size to the icy duo of Uranus and Neptune.
4. It has an orbital period of 20,000 YEARS, i.e., it takes 20,000 years for Planet 9 to orbit the Sun.

All these properties make Planet 9 highly likely to exist, but however, a planet that is incredibly hard to spot. And unless we spot this planet, unless we receive that hard evidence, only then will it gain official planetary status and become Pluto’s substitute.

At its aphelion [point where it is farthest from the Sun], its distance from the Earth is a hell of a lot. It is shrouded in the unexplored realm of the Kuiper Belt. And as you can guess from the amount of time and effort this discovery has taken, Planet Nine isn’t exactly crying out for attention.

It may take thousands of years for Planet 9 to even approach its perihelion, when we can actually catch a real glimpse of this celestial treasure. And hopefully, when it comes, we’ll be waiting. Waiting out in the open night with our telescopes. Or maybe even with our naked eyes, just hoping to witness this spectacle of space. All that is needed is a bit of curiosity: to look into the sky, and hope for a miracle. A passion to know, to see, to gaze into the unknown and understand its very being. After all, curiosity is what led to the discovery of Planet 9 – it is curiosity which fuels scientific progress.

Life is good. Adieu.

“No, it wasn’t an accident, I didn’t say that. It was carefully planned, down to the tiniest mechanical and emotional detail. But it was a mistake.” ― John Paxton, On the Beach

Nuclear. It was once a word associated with scientific and technological advancement. Universally acknowledged as ‘relating to the nucleus of an atom/ the energy generated from it’. A synonym of innovation.

But those were happier times. The world has changed, and the word has too.

Today, nuclear is almost always associated with one word: weapon. Seldom do we think about it as a discovery; more as a means of annihilating our world. Destruction, death, warfare, apocalypse – these are most definitely the first words that come to our minds. Why, you ask? Well, being a nuclear weapons aficionado myself, here is your answer.

Nuclear weapons come under WMDs [Weapons of Mass Destruction], a set of the most destructive kinds of weapons that exist.

The first WMD is Biological, which uses biological toxins, and infectious substances, including but not limited to bacteria, fungi and viruses in an attempt to incapacitate human beings. Then there are Chemical weapons, which like their name suggest, use highly harmful chemicals to inflict harm on people. Thirdly there are Radiological weapons, which use radioactive material and implements of radioactivity to conduct mass-murders.

All of these Weapons of Mass Destruction are of course, highly destructive. But, and that’s a resonant ‘but’, nuclear weapons are the alpha and omega, the be-all and end-all of WMDS. Why? Well, it’s simply because nuclear weapons are the most likely to be used. They are the most abundant of the WMDs, and are a universally recognized threat.

Nuclear weapons are formed by two intense chemical processes – fission and fusion. In fission, large atoms like uranium are split into two or more smaller ones, releasing tremendously mind-blowing amounts of nuclear energy. In fusion, two or more lighter atoms are fused to form a larger one, releasing energy 4 times more than that of nuclear fission.

Seeing as to exactly how strong nuclear energy can be, it is, to an ignorant mind, unimaginable to envision the impact such energy can have when used for warfare. But that’s what nuclear weapons are.

Nuclear weapons are becoming more popular by the minute, and are hence slowly becoming a symbol of the superiority of nations. Very few countries currently have nuclear weapons, but still they have been often misused leading to the introduction of nuclear policies, and many more countries are progressing rapidly in nuclear arsenal development.

Nuclear warfare is a growing topic in international councils, conferences and meetings, and the importance of such discussions is being realized in this 21st century of ours. In this series of articles, we shall be discussing the history of nuclear weapons, present-day nuclear weapons; and more importantly, the role they play on the world stage and how they affect international relations. We talk about different countries’ nuclear stance, the politics of nuclear war, and the future of this ominous subject.

I shall conclude by saying that nuclear weapons are a major constituent of the global arms race, as well as the global political agenda. They are definitely not to be taken lightly, because they can literally cause the end of this world as we know it.

Life is good. For now.

Adieu.

 

“This world’s anguish is no different from the love we insist on holding back.” ― Aberijhani, Elemental: The Power of Illuminated Love

Syria. A name you’re bound to have heard flung around in the news somewhere, but many a time, you either don’t get what’s going on, or you don’t want to.

But the fact of the matter is, Syria’s Civil War is a devastatingly sorrowful and serious story. Ignoring it itself is a sin, because it encompasses so many major nations of the world. Being a Syrian Civil War aficionado myself [weird, I know], here is a summary of what really is going on and why it’s not ‘just another dispute.’

So it all begins in 1970, when after several coup d’états and other such political battles, General Hafez-al-Assad seizes power and sets up his authoritarian regime in Damascus, Syria. He rules Syria for many, many years, and in the early 1990s, questions arise as to who his successor would be. A majority wanted his son, Bassel, a confident, charismatic gentleman who they believed would lead Syria out of this harsh rule. However, fate decides otherwise, and Bassel is killed in a car accident. So, Hafez calls his other son Bashar-al-Assad, who was at the time [1994] studying ophthalmology in London, to come to Syria and be his successor. Bashar accepts and Hafez popularises him among the Syrians, and all the while, Bashar is undergoing military training and gearing up to become Syria’s new President.

Hafez dies in 2000 and of course, Bashar is elected President – considering he was, like, the only candidate. Bashar, having experienced the European governmental structure for many years, tries to introduce reforms and makes the people believe that he is changing Syria for the better; making it more modern. However after several arguments and debates including the ‘Damascus Spring’ period, it is decided that Bashar is making false promises, and that he speaks a lot, but does very little. It is the same authoritarian rule of the past.

Fast-forward to 2011, when, after a long wait, a massive uprising takes place all over the Middle-East, titled the Arab Spring protests. These are these uprisings and riots for pro-democracy purposes, aiming to overthrow the dictatorship authoritarian regimes that dominate most of the Middle-East. After overthrowing leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, these protests reach good ol’ Syria, still under Bashar-al-Assad. For a few months, the protests go on with violent outbreaks here and there; until, on 25th April, Bashar ordered the Syrian Army to open fire on hundreds of civilians who protest against his rule. Tons of innocent people are killed in a rash presidential move – maybe one of the worst ever. Approximately 1000 civilians were killed and 1000s more detained.

Soon, some officers defect from the Syrian Army, and along with several Syrian civilians, they form the FSA [Free Syrian Army.]  The FSA is shocked by Assad’s violent moves, and wants to ‘bring this regime down.’ These rebels grow in number and return the fatal favour to President al-Assad, in a series of hypocritical moves where they kill hundreds of Shia Muslims [the Muslim sect from which Assad hails, which he generally favours over the discriminated Sunnis and Kurds.]

Then, the Kurdish sect of Assad’s regime breaks apart, and forms its own rebel group. Now all this while, turmoil has been occurring, with the Rebels and the Kurds fighting against Assad and the Syrian Government, but the Rebels and the Kurds aren’t necessarily friends either.

Soon, the war gets big enough for other countries to get involved, and Iran, being Syria’s biggest ally, finances and sends troops and support to Assad and co. Soon even the mighty Lebanese Hezbollah comes to Assad’s aid. Turkey and Jordan however start giving military support to the FSA Rebels in their war against Assad. So loyalties are being flung everywhere. The Gulf countries [notably Saudi Arabia and UAE] provide lots of money to Turkey and Jordan to help the Rebels, but do not get directly involved in the war.

The Rebels, Kurds, Syrian Government, and their respective allies continue fighting until things escalate and on 21st August, 2013, Assad uses chemical weapons in Damascus, Syria. In a massively inhumane act, several hundreds are killed, and Bashar-al-Assad is targeted by countries around the world for war crimes.

The USA gets involved [they already had before with covert CIA operations] but now, they threaten to start airstrikes against Assad. The question is, why doesn’t the UN [United Nations], the world peacekeeping body, intervene along with the major countries backing them? The answer is Russia and China. The UN Security Council has had several sessions discussing whether to send troops into Syria, but this decision has been vetoed by Russia and China, which have several financial and maritime interests in Syria and hence, are with al-Assad.

Soon out of this mess ensues something big – a major threat to not just that region, but to the world. Al Qaeda, the terrorists responsible for 9/11, has their own branch in Iraq, but over disagreements over Syria, they break away, as do several extremists from the FSA. They then form ISIS [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria], an Islamic militant jihadist group determined to establish their own Sunni Muslim caliphate, or nation, in Iraq and Syria. ISIS grows swiftly in number and strength, with several influences, and lots of money. They pose a threat to all sides, and are fighting for their own land, their own state. These terrorists behead, slaughter, loot, and several countries are even frightened of them. But ISIS doesn’t attack Assad – instead, it targets the Rebel FSA and the Kurds.

The Pentagon from USA starts training the Rebels, but now it doesn’t focus on Assad, its primary target – instead it focuses on ISIS. This asks the firm question – where do USA’s loyalties lie? Turkey bombs the Kurds, even though they are also against the Assad regime, which poses the same aforementioned question. Russia arrives to help Assad, sending in troops and finance to fight the Rebels and the several other enemies, which puts Russia in an indirect conflict with the USA, who support the Rebels.

This is the Syrian Civil War. It’s been continuing for 4 years now, and doesn’t look like it’s near any end. There’s one word for it – confusing. So many groups, so many alliances, so many conflicts, so many countries, so many people, so many deaths – It is simply a hellhole.

The question is, should Bashar-al-Assad be allowed to continue, since he ruled for 10 whole years without much dissent? Should the Rebels really come to power, since they incorporate so many terrorists and extremists and madmen along with them? There is only one thing for sure – it is a deep, complicated mess – and it has to end. It doesn’t matter who wins, because a whole lot of innocent people are either being killed or are vacating as refugees to other countries, in search of asylum. The more this tragic onslaught continues, the worse our already fragile world becomes.

Adieu.

 

 

 

“Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. … In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.” – Ayn Rand, Philosophy, Who Needs It (pt.2)

Philosophy – a field of knowledge which many people on this Earth don’t know jack about, very few care about, and a majority think is useless. Philosophy is dying in this modern day technology-driven world of ours. But I fervently hope that the time doesn’t come when we don’t need philosophy anymore: when we take to our devices and forget about our vices.

Philosophy is, if you were wondering, the study of human nature and existence. It’s about how we think, what we think, how we treat others, the systems we use, nature and technology the future of humanity, and life as a whole. It is, in short, the study of the reality of the world.

The question is, why is philosophy dying? Why don’t people practice it anymore? Firstly, philosophy shouldn’t be dying.

This world is different from what it was a century ago. People are more inclined towards science and technology, and that’s a great thing. Scientific advancements are very useful for humanity.  But because of a science-driven world, religion is often targeted. After all, throughout history, we’ve seen that science and religion don’t really get along. And herein lies our problem – many people see philosophy and religion as one and the same, which is incorrect.

Religion is based on what may well be myth – stories from long, long ago, stories that are based on beliefs of a large community, that may not be scientific or logical. Philosophy on the other hand is extremely logical. It addresses the same things as religion, but its manner and basis is different. Then why is it not scientific? Science is specialized, it has an objective, aim and focus – a clear-cut definition. Philosophy is deep. But in its deepness, it is extremely general, as it delves into everything. It is a large-scale perspective of what we are. Philosophy is, in the conventional sense, pervasive. 

Studying philosophy may stray you a bit away from science as it is so non-specific, or maybe stray you away from religion as it is so logical – but I believe it is deeply entangled in both science and religion, which is what makes it so daunting.

We need philosophy as it reflects on the human condition. You may think some time in your life – What is an education really for? Why do we have rules and why do we get punished for breaking them? What is the basis of these rules? Why is good good and evil evil? Why is everything what it is? Philosophy channels a train of complex thought, which is necessary to actually understand what it is that we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and most importantly – what’s going to happen?

To put it simply, science would give you the vast amounts of knowledge. But philosophy would teach you about knowledge itself.

Philosophy reflects on our various political systems of governance,  and also on the nature of art, the different forms of art, and why we like it so much. It talks about moral values -our ethics and integrity, how we behave, how we treat others, our trues intentions, etc. And then it talks about reality and knowledge itself.

Philosophy is the mecca of varying perspectives. Each person has their own opinions, and since this is a world of opinions, philosophy is quite often a long and bloody war. For eg., communism vs. capitalism. But that’s what makes philosophy so fantastic. The conflict of opinion, the analysis: it works your mind like nothing else. That’s pretty much why you shouldn’t let it die.

Life is good. Adieu.

“Tomorrow is the first blank page of a 365 page book. Write a good one.”  – Brad Paisley.

That tomorrow is now today. The anticipation, the build-up has all ended in a fraction of a second. Happy New Year.

As you sit there in the few minutes after the clock strikes 12, and the 1st of January 2016 awakens, you often look back at the past year and the memories you’ve made – sad or joyous. And then you look ahead and get ready to make new ones.

Along with a new year comes that instinctive urge to change. You know, dissatisfaction with oneself and a desire to be better. And that’s what makes a New Year so great. We receive a huge clean slate, and we can awaken to a fresh start. That’s why a New Year isn’t just another day.

2015’s been a morose yet exciting year for the world as a whole – with some major news events, scientific and historical milestones, some unforgettable entertainment and pop culture [Star Wars, Avengers, Jurassic World!!], literature galore, and a whole lot of political mumbo-jumbo.

Why a morose year, you ask? Well, so many shocking events – Nepal Earthquake, the rise of IS [Islamic State] with the 13/11 Paris Attacks and 12/11 Beirut bombings, Charlie Hebdo shooting, the Greece economic crisis, the massively infamous Syrian Refugee Crisis, Mecca stampede, California shootings, FIFA corruption scandal, and Volkswagen emissions scandal.

Why a great year then, you ask? Well, the UN Sustainable Development Goals for a better future planning to eradicate all humanitarian and social wrongdoings, the Paris Climate Agreement after COP21 conference, the discovery of Kepler 452b and liquid on Mars, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, relaxation of China’s one-child policy, and much more.

So it was bittersweet – which year isn’t? The world is getting better and worse at the same time, and I have no doubt 2016 will succeed in showcasing that. It won’t be all good, I guarantee. But don’t be such a pessimist – it won’t be all bad either.

Life is good. Adieu.