OOC: Image attribution – Esmu Igors, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
I might actually make this post public, since I think everything I'm saying here is above board. If it is public, and you are reading this, then let me say this first: No, I'm not back. I'm just posting some 'extras' from my job at the GDW when I feel like it, that's all.
As some of you know, I've been writing about the interdisciplinary conference on football. There were a bunch of interesting talks, some of which I couldn't write about for the GDW (for various reasons). One such talk was only tangentially related to the sport of football and it wasn't really an 'academic' talk either, in the sense that the speaker wasn't presenting new and original research. This was more of a 'pop science' talk, the kind of thing you'd expect to see on an educational TV show. The talk was titled 'How fundamental is the football?' and it was given by Dr. Robert Carew, a lecturer in philosophy (of physics) at Dinas Sand University. I thought the 'the' in the title was a typo, but it turns out he was talking about football the object and not football the game.
There are these football-shaped molecules made out of 60 carbon atoms called buckminsterfullerene or 'buckyballs'. They look like this:

A naturally-occurring molecule that looks like a football. Neat! The title was still a little misleading, though, as Dr. Carew started off by quickly explaining that buckyballs aren't fundamental at all. What makes something 'fundamental' in physics is its inability to be explanatorily reduced to something else (e.g. you can't appeal to some more fundamental thing in explaining how it exists or works). Buckyballs are made up of 60 carbon atoms and those carbon atoms contain 6 protons and 6 electrons (how many neutrons they contain depends on whether these atoms are C-12 or C-13 – roughly half of all buckyballs have only C-12 atoms, which means each atom would have 6 neutrons). 720 particles in total. The protons and neutrons are made up of 3 quarks each too, so if we're counting quarks and electrons as fundamental particles then a single buckyball is made up of over 2000 fundamental particles. They're pretty big molecules. Their structure is also the product of more fundamental forces – electromagnetic forces and chemical bonds holding the carbon atoms together to create their distinctive and recognisable shape.
What makes buckyballs interesting to physicists, however, isn't the fact that they're shaped like footballs. They're interesting because they're much bigger than particles like electrons and photons but physicists can still perform some famous quantum mechanical experiments on them, like the famous double-slit experiment. In other words, buckyballs seem to behave in a way that fits with the predictions of quantum theory. The structure itself, not just the particles making it up, exhibits this quantum mechanical behaviour. They help physicists understand how quantum mechanics works at a larger scale – a scale much larger than that of fundamental particles, but much smaller than that of large composite objects like chairs and tables. They're like a bridge between the world of fundamental microscopic particles and the macroscopic world that's familiar to you and me. Dr. Carew finished up by talking about 'vague boundaries' between 'classical' and 'quantum' objects, along with the implications this has for the debate over 'object-level vagueness' and 'vague properties' in philosophy. He kinda lost me there and I still don't really understand what he was saying even after I asked him about it at dinner, but the idea is basically that there might be some unknowable boundary between objects best described using classical physics and objects best described using quantum physics. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting talk, even though I'm not entirely sure who the intended audience was supposed to be.
Catching up on the football, we broke our three game losing streak with a very impressive 4-0 win against Middle Alba away from home. It was a great showing, especially since they beat us in their away game last time around. We also picked up a solid 2-2 home draw against Kamijiro, which was all the more impressive considering they currently sit fourth and are hungry for a qualification spot. We're not expecting to qualify, obviously, and while we're not mathematically out of contention yet I expect that to change within the next two games (currently we need to win every single remaining game in a row and Milchama to lose every game, along with results going our way for all the other teams above us). Frankly, we should be happy to finish above last as an unranked team, but it would be nice to see us finish eight or even push for seventh.














Comment (48)
Recommend (82)
E-mail
Share
Print
Reprints/Permissions















