Martian Fluvial Flows, Placid and Catastrophic

Image

Despite the fact that, apart localized dust surfaces in summer, the surface of Mars has had average temperatures that never exceeded about minus 50 degrees C over its lifetime, it also has had some quite unexpected fluid systems. One of the longest river systems starts in several places at approximately 60 degrees south in the highlands, nominally one of the coldest spots on Mars, and drains into Argyre, thence to the Holden and Ladon Valles, then stops and apparently dropped massive amounts of ice in the Margaritifer Valles, which are at considerably lower altitude and just north of the equator. Why does a river start at one of the coldest places on Mars, and freeze out at one of the warmest? There is evidence of ice having been in the fluid, which means the fluid must have been water. (Water is extremely unusual in that the solid, ice, floats in the liquid.) These fluid systems flowed, although not necessarily continuously, for a period of about 300 million years, then stopped entirely, although there are other regions where fluid flows probably occurred later. To the northeast of Hellas (the deepest impact crater on Mars) the Dao and Harmakhis Valles change from prominent and sharp channels to diminished and muted flows at –5.8 k altitude that resemble terrestrial marine channels beyond river mouths.

So, how did the water melt? For the Dao and Harmakhis, the Hadriaca Patera (volcano) was active at the time, so some volcanic heat was probably available, but that would not apply to the systems starting in the southern highlands.

After a prolonged period in which nothing much happened, there were catastrophic flows that continued for up to 2000 km forming channels up to 200 km wide, which would require flows of approximately 100,000,000 cubic meters/sec. For most of those flows, there is no obvious source of heat. Only ice could provide the volume, but how could so much ice melt with no significant heat source, be held without re-freezing, then be released suddenly and explosively? There is no sign of significant volcanic activity, although minor activity would not be seen. Where would the water come from? Many of the catastrophic flows start from the Margaritifer Chaos, so the source of the water could reasonably be the earlier river flows.

There was plenty of volcanic activity about four billion years ago. Water and gases would be thrown into the atmosphere, and the water would ice/snow out predominantly in the coldest regions. That gets water to the southern highlands, and to the highlands east of Hellas. There may also be geologic deposits of water. The key now is the atmosphere. What was it? Most people say it was carbon dioxide and water, because that is what modern volcanoes on Earth give off, but the mechanism I suggested in my “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis” was the gases originally would be reduced, that is mainly methane and ammonia. The methane would provide some sort of greenhouse effect, but ammonia on contact with ice at minus 80 degrees C or above, dissolves in the ice and makes an ammonia/water solution. This, I propose, was the fluid. As the fluid goes north, winds and warmer temperatures would drive off some of the ammonia so oddly enough, as the fluid gets warmer, ice starts to freeze. Ammonia in the air will go and melt more snow. (This is not all that happens, but it should happen.)  Eventually, the ammonia has gone, and the water sinks into the ground where it freezes out into a massive buried ice sheet.

If so, we can now see where the catastrophic flows come from. We have the ice deposits where required. We now require at least fumaroles to be generated underneath the ice. The Margaritifer Chaos is within plausible distance of major volcanism, and of tectonic activity (near the mouth of the Valles Marineris system). Now, let us suppose the gases emerge. Methane immediately forms clathrates with the ice (enters the ice structure and sits there), because of the pressure. The ammonia dissolves ice and forms a small puddle below. This keeps going over time, but as it does, the amount of water increases and the amount of ice decreases. Eventually, there comes a point where there is insufficient ice to hold the methane, and pressure builds up until the whole system ruptures and the mass of fluid pours out. With the pressure gone, the remaining ice clathrates start breaking up explosively. Erosion is caused not only by the fluid, but by exploding ice.

The point then is, is there any evidence for this? The answer is, so far, no. However, if this mechanism is correct, there is more to the story. The methane will be oxidised in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide by solar radiation and water. Ammonia and carbon dioxide will combine and form ammonium carbonate, then urea. So if this is true, we expect to find buried where there had been water, deposits of urea, or whatever it converted to over three billion years. (Very slow chemical reactions are essentially unknown – chemists do not have the patience to do experiments over millions of years, let alone billions!) There is one further possibility. Certain metal ions complex with ammonia to form ammines, which dissolve in water or ammonia fluid. These would sink underground, and if the metal ions were there, so might be the remains of the ammines now. So we have to go to Mars and dig.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Asteroids

If you have been to more than the occasional science fiction movie, you will know that a staple is to have the trusty hero being pursued, but escaping by weaving in and out of an asteroid field. Looks like good cinema, they make it exciting, but it is not very realistic. If asteroids were that common, according to computer simulations their mutual gravity would bring them together to form a planet, and very quickly. In most cases, if you were standing on an asteroid, you would be hard pressed to see another one, other than maybe as a point like the other stars. One of the first things about the asteroid belt is it is mainly empty. If we combined all the mass of the asteroids we would get roughly 4% of the mass of the Moon. Why is that? The standard theory of planetary formation cannot really answer that, so they say there were a lot there, but Jupiter’s gravity drove them out, at the same time overlooking the fact their own theory says they should form a planet through their self-gravity if there were that amny of them. If that were true, why did it leave some? It is not as if Jupiter has disappeared. In my “Planetary formation and Biogenesis”, my answer is that while the major rocky planets formed by “stone” dust being cemented together by one other agent, the asteroid belt, being colder, could only manage dust being cemented together with two other agents, and getting all three components in the same place at the same time was more difficult.

There is a further reason why I do not believe Jupiter removed most of the asteroids. The distribution currently has gaps, called the Kirkwood gaps, where there are very few asteroids, and these occur at orbital resonances with Jupiter. Such a resonance is when the target body would orbit at some specific ratio to Jupiter’s orbital period, so frequently the perturbations are the same because in a given frame of reference, they occur in the same place. Thus the first such gap occurs at 2.06 A.U. from the sun, where any asteroid would go around the sun exactly four times while Jupiter went around once. That is called a 4:1 resonance, and the main gaps occur at 3:1, 5:2, 7:3 and 2:1 resonances. Now the fact that Jupiter can clear out these narrow zones but leave all the rest more or less unchanged strongly suggests to me there were never a huge population of asteroids and we are seeing a small residue.

The next odd thing about asteroids is that while there are not very many of them, they change their characteristics as they get further from the star (with some exceptions to be mentioned soon.) The asteroids closest to the sun are basically made of silicates, that is, they are essentially giant rocks. There appear to be small compositional variations as they get further from the star, then there is a significant difference. How can we tell? Well, we can observe their brightness, and in some cases we can correlate what we see with meteorites, which we can analyse. So, further out, they get significantly duller, and fragments that we call carbonaceous chondrites land on Earth. These contain a small amount of water, and organic compounds that include a variety of amino acids, purines and pyrimidines. This has led some to speculate that our life depended on these landing on Earth in large amounts when Earth was very young. In my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”, I disagree. The reasons are that to get enough, a huge number of such asteroids would have to impact the Earth because they are still basically rock, BUT at the same time, hardly any of the silicate based asteroids would have to arrive, because if they did, the isotopes of certain elements on Earth would have to be different. Such isotope evidence also rules these out as a source of water, as does certain ratios such as carbon to chlorine. What these asteroid fragments do show, however, is that amino acids and other similar building blocks of life are reasonably easily formed. If they can form on a lump of rock in a vacuum, why cannot they form on Earth?

The asteroid belt also has the odd weird asteroid. The first is Ceres, the largest. What is weird about it is that it is half water. The rest are essentially dry or only very slightly wet. How did that happen, and more to the point, why did it not happen more frequently? The second is Vesta, the second largest. Vesta is rocky, although it almost certainly had water at some stage because there is evidence of quartz. It has also differentiated, and while the outer parts have olivine, deeper down we get members of the pyroxene class of rocks, and deeper down still there appears to be a nickel/iron core. Now there is evidence that there may be another one or two similar asteroids, but by and large it is totally different from anything else in the asteroid belt. So how did that get there?

I rather suspect that they started somewhere else and were moved there. What would move them is if they formed and came close to a planet, and instead of colliding with it, they were flung into a highly elliptical orbit, and then would circularise themselves where they ended up. Why would they do that? In the case of Vesta, at some stage it suffered a major collision because there is a crater near the south pole that is 25 km deep, and it is from this we know about the layered nature of the asteroid. Such a collision may have resulted in it remaining in orbit roughly near its present position, and the orbit would be circularised due to the gravity of Jupiter. Under this scenario, Vesta would have formed somewhere near Earth to get the iron core. Ceres, on the other hand, probably formed closer to Jupiter.

In my previous post, I wrote that I believed the planets and other bodies grew by Monarchic growth, but that does not mean there were no other bodies growing in a region. Monarchic growth means the major object grows by accreting things at least a hundred times smaller, but of course significant growth can occur for other objects. The most obvious place to grow would be at a Lagrange point of the biggest object and the sun. That is a position where the planet’s gravitational field and the sun’s cancel, and the body is in stable or metastable orbit there. Once it gets to a certain size, however, it is dislodged, and that is what I think was the source of the Moon, its generating body probably starting at L4, the position at the same distance from the sun as Earth, but sixty degrees in front of it. There are other metastable positions, and these may have also formed around Venus or Mercury, and these would also be unstable due to different rocky planets. The reason I think this is that for Vesta to have an iron core, it had to pick up bodies with a lot of iron, and such bodies would form in the hotter part of the disk while the star was accreting. This is also the reason why Earth has an iron core and Mars has a negligible one. However, as I understand it, the isotopes from rocks on Vesta are not equivalent to those of Earth, so it may well have started life nearer to Venus or Mercury. So far we have no samples to analyse that we know came from either of these two planets, and I am not expecting any such samples anytime soon.

A Giant Planet Around a Dwarf Star

The news here, at least, has made much of the discovery of NGTS-1b, described as a giant planet orbiting a dwarf star. It is supposed to be the biggest planet ever found around such a small star, and it is supposed to be inexplicable how such a big planet could form. One key point that presumably everyone will agree with is, a small star forms because there is less gas and dust in the cloud that will form the star than in the cloud that forms a big star. Accordingly there is less total material to form a planet. Missing from that statement is the fact that in all systems the amount of mass in the planets is trivial compared to the mass of the star. Accordingly, there is nothing at all obscure about an unexpectedly big planet if the planet was just a bit more efficient at taking material that would otherwise go into the star.

So, a quick reality check: the star is supposed to be about 60% the size of the sun, and the planet is about 80% the mass of Jupiter, but has a somewhat larger radius. Planets up to twenty times the size of Jupiter are known around stars that are not more than about three times the size of our sun, so perhaps there is more being made of this “big planet” than is reasonable.

Now, why is it inexplicable how such a large planet could form around a small star, at least in standard theory? The mechanism of formation of planets in the standard theory is that first gas pours in, forms the star, and leaves a residual disk (the planetary accretion disk), in which gas is essentially no longer moving towards the star. That is not true; the star continues to accrete, but several orders or magnitude more slowly. The argument then is that this planetary accretion disk has to contain all the material needed to form the planets, and they have to form fast enough to get as big as they end up before the star ejects all dust and gas, which can take somewhere up to 10 million years (10 My), with a mean of about 3 My. There is some evidence that some disks last at least 30 My. Now the dust collides, sticks (although why or how is always left out in the standard theory) and forms planetesimals, which are bodies of asteroid size. These collide and form bigger bodies, and so on. This is called oligarchic growth. The problem is, as the bodies get larger, the distance between them increases and collision probability falls away, not helped by the fact that the smaller the star, the slower the orbiting bodies move, the less turbulent it will be, so the rate of collisions slows dramatically. For perspective purposes, collisions in the asteroid belt are very rare, and when they occur, they usually lead to the bodies getting smaller, not bigger. There are a modest number of such families of detritus asteroids.

The further out the lower the concentration of matter, simply because there is a lot more space. A Jupiter-sized body has to grow fast because it has to get big enough for its gravity to hold hydrogen, and then actually hold it, before the disk gases disappear. Even accreting gas is not as simple as it might sound, because as the gas falls down the planetary gravitational field, it gets hot, and that leads to some gas boiling off back to space. To get going quickly, it needs more material, and hence a Jupiter type body is argued (correctly, in my opinion) to form above the snow line of water ice. (For the purposes of discussion, I shall call material higher up the gravitational potential “above”, in which case “below” is closer to the star.) It is also held that the snow line is not particularly dependent on stellar mass, in which case various planetary systems should scale similarly. With less material around the red dwarf, and as much space to put it in, everything will go a lot slower and the gas will be eliminated before a planet is big enough to handle it. Accordingly, it seems that according to standard theory, this planet should not form, let alone be 0.036 A.U. from the star.

The distance from the star is simply explained in any theory: it started somewhere else and moved there. The temperature at that distance is about 520 degrees C, and with solar wind it would be impossible for a small core to accrete that much gas. (The planet has a density of less than 1, so like Saturn it would float if put in a big enough tub of water.) How would it move? The simplest way would be if we imagined a Jupiter and a Saturn formed close enough together, when they could play gravitational billiards, whereby one moves close to the star and the other is ejected from the system. There are other plausible ways.

That leaves the question of how the planet forms in the first place. To get so big, it has to form fast, and there is evidence to support such rapid growth. The planet LkCa 15b is around a star that is slightly smaller than the sun, it is three times further out than Jupiter, and it is five times bigger than Jupiter. I believe this makes our sun special – the accretion disk must have been ejected maybe as quickly as 1 My. Simulations indicate that oligarchic growth should not have led to any such oligarchic growth that far out. My explanation (given in my ebook “Planetary Formation and Biogenesis”) is that the growth was actually monarchic. This is a mechanism once postulated by Weidenschilling, in 2004 (Weidenschilling, S., 2004. Formation of the cores of the outer planets. Space Science Rev. 116: 53-56.) In this mechanism, provided other bodies do not grow at a sufficient rate to modify significantly the feed density, a single body will grow proportionately to its cross-sectional area by taking all dust that is in its feed zone, which is augmented by gravitation. The second key way to get a bigger planet is to have the planetary accretion disk last longer. The third is, in my theory, the initial accretion is chemical, and the Jupiter core forms like a snowball, by water ice compression fusing. Further, I argue it will start even while the star is accreting. That only occurs tolerably close to the melting point, so it is temperature dependent. The temperatures are reached very much closer to the star for a dwarf. Finally, the planet forming around a dwarf has one final growth advantage: because the star has a lower gravity, the gas will be drifting towards the star more slowly, so the growing planet, while having a less dense feed, also receives a higher fraction of the feed.

So, in my opinion, apart from the fact the planet is so lose to the star, so far there is nothing surprising about it at all, and the mechanisms for getting it close to the star are there, and there are plenty of other “star-burning” planets that have been found.

Why has the monarchic growth concept not taken hold? In my opinion, this is a question of fashion. The oligarchic growth mechanism has several advantages for the preparation of scientific papers. You can postulate all sorts of initial conditions and run computer simulations, then report those that make any sense as well as those that don’t (so others don’t waste time.) Monarchic growth leaves no real room for scientific papers.

Politics and jail

The news this week is certainly attention grabbing. For my money, I suspect the most interest will fall on the indictment of Paul Manafort. I have read the indictments, and it is clear that while some of them are probably there for lawyer talk, there are two really serious ones. The first is he laundered money, at least $18 million worth, and maybe a lot more, and the second is that money mostly went for his personal benefit and he did not declare it as income. Tax evasion has been a classic way of sending bad guys to prison, an example being one Alphonse Capone.

The most obvious question to answer is, did he do it? If he did, it was not very bright of him to manage the US presidential campaign because politics, being what it is, sends too many people looking for a way to discredit you. Having committed obvious crimes, even if so far nobody has noticed, is an obvious weakness. The most obvious weakness is that Manafort is supposed to have avoided tax, but that also assumes he owned the money, as opposed to acting as an agent for the owner of the money. The indictment names a few properties, and I assume Manafort’s name will be on the property ownership papers as the owner. If so, he will be in trouble. However, he will be less so if he can prove he is merely an agent for the true owner. If he tries that, then he could be effectively admitting guilt to being an agent for a foreigner without registering, which is one of the other indictments. Interestingly, this appears to be being tried in a State court, rather than a Federal court. Does a State court really have jurisdiction over Federal matters? We await further developments.

One of the more interesting indictments is that he acted against the interests of the United States by carrying out contract work for Yanukovich, then President of Ukraine. Since when is it against the interests of the United States Government to carry out work for a democratically elected President of a foreign government that is not a declared enemy of the United States?

The other interesting issue is Catalonia. The Catalan regional parliament has voted to declare independence from Spain, on the basis that 90% of the 43% that voted in a nominally illegal referendum voted for independence. The Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, declared the vote and the declaration to be illegal, although what that means remains to be seen. The Catalan President, Carles Puigdemont, had paused and I thought he might even step away from going ahead with the declaration, but he has elected to declare seccession. Meanwhile, the UK, Germany and France have supported Spanish unity. So, what now? Puigdemont nominally faces up to 30 years in jail, but I doubt that that will be enforced unless something goes really wrong between now and then.

On the other hand, Madrid has apparently arrested a number of senior Ministers of the Catalna government who declared independence, and presumably they will try them in court. Puigdemont is apparently in Brussels, and claims he will not return to Spain until the threat of arrest is removed. Whether that will work is a matter of interest, but from Madrid’s point of view, they may not care. Puigdemont out of the way is probably just as useful to them and they do not want a political martyr.

Suppose the Catalans did secede, what would happen? The main “reason” for independence cited is to preserve the language, and to give a feeling of independence. They also feel that Catalonia pays €10 billion more to Madrid than it gets back in spending. Of course, not counted in that “paid back” are the services Madrid pays for, such as border patrol, customs, international relations, defence, a central bank, the tax service and air traffic control are some of them. As an independent country, it would have to set up these. There is also a sense of selfishness here; why should we send money to the poorer parts of Spain?

However, even in finance, there is a problem. The Catalan regional government owes €77 billion, of which about 2/3 is owed to Madrid. Then, of course, Madrid would expect Catalonia to share its proportion of the Spanish national debt. Further, two thirds of Catalonia’s exports go to the EU, and if Catalonia seceded it would be out of the EU, and would have to go to the back of the queue to get back in. Spain would then have the power of veto. Further, if it gained independence, it would have to leave the euro zone, and again Spain, and friends, could block re-entry. Either way, it would have to set up its own currency in the meantime. Of course countries like San Marino uses the euro without being an EU member with the eorozone’s approval, since they are so small. Nobody knows whether Catilonia would qualify, but Spain could block that. Apparently Kosovo and Montenegro use the euro without the EU’s approval. After all, a bank note is a bank note. However, a problem will arise if they ever need credit. If you use someone else’s currency, you have to earn it. Who knows what will happen?

Gravitational Waves and Gold

One of the more interesting things to be announced recently was the detection of gravitational waves that were generated by the collision of two neutron stars. What was really interesting to me was that the event was also seen by telescopes, so we know what actually caused the gravitational waves. Originally it was thought that gravitational waves would be generated by colliding black holes, but I found that to be disturbing because I thought the frequency of detection should be rather low. The reason is that I thought black holes themselves would be rather rare. As far as we can tell most galaxies contain one in their centre, but the evidence for more is rather sparse. True, they are not easy to see, but if they come into contact with gas, which is present within galaxies, the gas falling into them will give out distinct Xray signals and further, they would perturb the paths of close stars, which means, while we cannot see the black hole, if they were common, there should be some signs.

There are some signs. The star Cygnus X-1 is apparently shedding material into some unseen companion, and giving off X-rays as well as light. A similar situation occurs for the star M33-X-7, which is in the galaxy Messier 33, which in turn is 2.7 million light years away. Now obviously there will be more that we cannot see because they are not tearing stars apart, but they are still rare. Obviously, collisions would be rarer still. With all the stars in the Universe, how often do we see a collision between stars? I am unaware of any in my life. Nevertheless, there have been estimates that there are about a billion moderately sized black holes (i.e. about 15- 20 times the size of our sun) in our galaxy. However, when we probe to see how they came up with this figure, it turned out that it arose because it was obvious that you needed them to be this common to get the frequency of the detection of gravitational waves. That reasoning is somewhat circular.

How would they collide? Like other stars within the galaxy, they would travel in orbit around a galactic centre, in which case the chances of meeting are rather low. And even if they did approach, why would they collide? The problem involves the conservation of angular momentum (the same sort of thing that the skater uses to slow down the spin by sticking her arms out). When one body approaches another, assuming they are not going to directly collide (in which case there is no angular momentum in their joint system) then they follow a hyperbolic orbit around each other and end up going away from each other in the reverse of however they approached. For one to capture the other, either the systems have to spin up to conserve angular momentum, or they have to throw something out and whichever they do, orbital decay requires a mechanism to get rid of a lot of energy. Further, they cannot spin up, which is an exchange of angular momentum, without tidal interactions forcing it. Now tidal interactions work by part of one body “flowing” in response the gravity of the other. The material does not have to move a lot, but it has to be able to move, and the black hole is so dense I don’t see it is very likely, although admittedly we know nothing about what goes on inside a black hole. We do know that nothing can escape from a black hole, so the mechanism of losing energy and angular momentum by ejecting something is out.

Now that such an event has been properly assigned to the collision of two neutron stars it makes me, at least, feel that everything is far more likely to be correct. Neutron stars are what is left over from a supernova, and it is easier to see neutron stars capture each other. First, neutron stars are made from very large stars, and while these are rarer than most other types of star, sometimes they come as double stars. That would make neutron stars close to each other, which is a start. Further, neutron stars are more likely to be deformable, and most certainly are more able to eject material into space. Neutron stars are really only held together by their intense gravity, and as they approach each other, the gravity tends to cancel, as the approaching object pulls against the pre-existing force. If the force needed to hold the neutrons becomes insufficient, the ejection of a significant amount of material is possible. After all, nuclei with a significant number more neutrons than protons are quite unstable, and each decaying neutron gives off over 1 MeV of energy. The neutron star is effectively a huge nucleus, but is held together by intense gravity rather than the strong force.

Apparently in this collision, a huge amount of material was ejected into space, and it is argued that this sort of event is what caused the formation of the metals heavier than iron, including gold and platinum. Such atoms then get mixed with the ejecta from supernovae and the hydrogen and helium from the start of the Universe, and here we are. It is a good story. However, I wonder if it is true that that is where all the gold etc. comes from? What bothers me about that explanation is that it is argued that atoms up to iron are made in stars and supernovae, but heavier ones are not because in the clouds of the ejecta, there isn’t time for the processes we know about. In my opinion, the intense pressures of the supernova that forms the neutron star would also form heavier elements. They don’t have to be made by adding protons and neutrons, after all, the synthetic elements we make, such as element number 118, are made by colliding big nuclei together. In this context, if you see a graph of the relative occurrence of the various elements, the curve is more or less smooth. Yes, there is a bit of a peak for elements around iron, but it then decays smoothly, and I would have expected that if some were made by a totally different procedure, then their relative concentrations would lie on different curves. I guess I shall never know. I can’t see anyone taking samples from the core of a supernova any time soon.

Trump and Agreements

My scientific background means that I tend to think that decisions should be evidence based, and be formed after analyzing the information available to whoever is making the decision. But a further point, and one I try to put into my novels, is that decisions involving human activity such as politics or confrontation should relate also to the future consequences. If you are going to make a decision that has adverse consequences, there should be the probability that beneficial ones will significantly outweigh the adverse ones. An interesting point here is that very frequently the adverse consequences can be seen fairly clearly and they are likely to happen, while the beneficial ones tend to rely on hopes. Even an act like buying something falls into this. The immediate adverse consequence is that sum of money is no longer available; the hope is the item will be beneficial. In this case you can probably guess that it will be, but on the other hand when you are young and you buy a used car you can never be sure. There can also be unforeseen adverse consequences. When I purchased my first car I had a mechanic check it out, and I knew the motor would need the piston rings replaced. I factored that into the price I offered, but when the motor was disassembled it was found that when originally assembled, someone had put a bearing in back to front, and the cranckshaft had been ground down. That was an unforeseen adverse effect, particularly on my bank balance.

Taking this to international politics, I believe that one important point is that when a country decides to enter an agreement with others, the other parties can accept that the agreement will be honoured. Doubts as to whether the agreement is worthwhile should be ironed out during the negotiations prior to the agreement being signed. In this sense, it is like a business contract. When one company signs a contract with another company, or person, each side assumes that the other will carry out its obligations. If they do not, they tend to end up in court. If there is absolutely no trust, nobody does any business, and if there is no commerce, everybody ends up the loser. Of course, every now and again someone cheats, and the other parties invariably lose. Occasionally, this can become catastrophic. A possible example of this comes from Kobe steel. Generally speaking, Japanese manufacturing has been praised for its adherence to quality control and quality management, but now it has been reported that Kobe Steel has been selling substandard steel for about a decade. Presumably not all has been substandard, but the problem with steel is that it tends to be structural and deep inside something else of considerably more value, so the ripples will go deep if these allegations are true. If so, this situation is now something of a disaster for Kobe Steel, but it would also be very bad for Japanese commerce as a whole.

It is these unforeseen issues that tend to have a lasting effect, but worse is when one side properly follows its obligations and the other side simply refuses, or decides to pull out of the agreement. The threat of pulling out of an agreement if the other side does not make more concessions is a particularly bad procedure. You get all the concessions you think you can, you agree, then after the other side has started to commit itself, you pull out and demand renegotiations. That, at the very least, leaves a bad taste.

Which brings me to President Trump. Since taking office, he has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (and in fairness, America had yet to sign, so he was entitled to do that), he has withdrawn from the Paris Accord, he has threatened to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, has signalled that he will withdraw from a trade pact with South Korea, and has now “decertitifed” (whatever that means) a multi-lateral agreement designed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In the latter case, international observers all agree that Iran is keeping to its side of the deal. Within the US he seems to have been trying as hard as he can to hobble Obamacare, seeing as he cannot abolish it altogether. It is as if he is a serial offender. Iran has apparently signalled to North Korea that it is a waste of time entering into an agreement with the US. Given that Kim can read smoke signals too, that is not encouraging.

Being destructive is easy. Anyone can tear up agreements. The problem then is, what happens next? Maybe Trump does not care, on the grounds that the rest of the world needs the US more than the US needs the rest of the world. I hope that is not what he is thinking, because it is not true.

Fragmenting Nations

One of the more interesting questions that have arisen lately is should a region of a country have the right to break away from the country and be independent, and if so, what are the obligations of the participants? The classic way of breaking away is to have a war. The US got its independence from Britain that way, as did Eire. Does nationhood depend on “might makes right?” It can, but surely there are other ways.

It certainly helped Kosovo, and Kosovo is of interest because it was effectively US air power and NATO forces that won the war. Clinton described the activity as “upholding our values, protecting our interests, and advancing the cause of peace”. Strictly speaking, this action had no UN Security Council approval, therefore it could be regarded as illegal, and it was described as illegal but justified. Whether the Serbs would agree is another matter, and it then becomes interesting that violating the law is fine as long as you think it is justified. Who says so? The guys with the most guns?

The background to Kosovo is of interest. Some in Kosovo wanted independence, particularly those of Albanian origin, and apparently things got out of hand when the Kosovo Liberation Army made four attacks on Serbian security people. The Serbians soon began calling the KLA terrorists (and since they carried out sneak murders, that is probably fair) while the Albanians saw them as “freedom fighters”. Up until 1998, the US government described the KLA as a terrorist group, but suddenly it changed its mind and used NATO to intervene. End of Kosovo Serbians’ hopes. US intervention had another effect: it took the Monica Lewinsky affair off the news table for President Clinton. The US used cluster bombs, and did serious damage and caused considerable civilian casualties, including to Albanians in Kosovo, but the net result was that Kosovo apparently has declared independence. However, not everyone recognizes this, and it remains to some extent under UN administration.

It would seem fair for a split if those leaving did so by winning a referendum that was fairly executed. Scotland had such a vote and decided to stay, so the issue does not arise, however I believe had the vote been yes, London would have agreed. Of course this raises the question that if they keep having votes, sooner or later they will get one result to leave, and that would be irreversible. So maybe there has to be a limit to the number or spacing of referenda.

However, votes can also be rigged in favour of some end. The vote to have a separate Kurdistan would probably win for the Kurds, but would they take Kirkuk? To make sure they would, when the Iraqi army fled from ISIS, a large number of Kurds poured into Kirkuk, and so I guess they would win a vote. But if you pour in the appropriate number of extras to win the vote, is that the right way to go? My guess is no. Then the question is, is the vote fair? When Crimea seceded from Ukraine and joined Russia, this was done with a clear majority vote favouring it, but the Russians had poured in a number of soldiers and they ran the voting system, and as a consequence a number of people do not believe it was fair. My guess is, it probably was because there were a lot of people of Russian descent there, but we cannot be sure. In Crimea, it probably was a case of “might makes right”, but if the Russian military did not come in, the Ukrainians had the might, and as can be seen in eastern Ukraine, they are prepared to use it.

Suppose we look at Catalonia. There have been widespread claims that Catalonia should be independent from Spain, and they held a referendum, which gained 90% in favour. So that is clear evidence, right? Maybe not. Spain declared the referendum illegal and sent in riot police. Those not in favour of independence may well have considered the vote illegal, and they wanted no part in it. It now turns out that only about 40% of those eligible to vote participated, so maybe this was not as conclusive as the enthusiasts claim.

The next question is, why do people want independence? Presumably because they feel they would be better off independent. The Catalans apparently are net donors (tax paid less benefits) to Madrid of about 10 billion euros. However, this might be a little misleading because there are a number of Head Offices of Spanish companies in Barcelona, so company tax from all activities in Spain would be paid from Barcelona. If Barcelona were in a separate country, presumably the activities from Spain would remain taxed by Spain. In Scotland’s case, one can’t help wondering whether the politicians had their eyes on the North Sea oil revenues. In my opinion, in such a breakup, existing royalties and such should be divided between the original members based on population, in which case the returns would be a lot less.

That leaves the Lukansk, Donbass and Donetz oblasts in Eastern Ukraine. Should they have independence? A lot of opinions in the West say yes; territorial integrity should outweigh grumpy citizens. In this case, Western Ukraine has quite different objectives; they want to join the EU while the East wants closer ties with Russia. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of this, in my opinion there has been enough shelling and bombing of these oblasts that the citizens there will not accept the Western domination. The West complains about Russian intervention that has helped the Eastern Ukrainians. In doing so, they conveniently forget Kosovo. Also, it is now very doubtful Ukraine could join the EU, and if they did, they would find EU financial impositions on Ukraine would make Greece look somewhat attractive. My guess is, Germany would not be willing to carry an even bigger load.

So, what are the conditions for breaking up? I rather fancy there is no recipe. The various places have to find their own salvation. Nothing could be worse, however, than encouraging a breakup, and leaving one part without adequate resources, or encouraging them, and then walking away after the event.

A personal scientific low point.

When I started my PhD research, I was fairly enthusiastic about the future, but I soon got disillusioned. Before my supervisor went on summer holidays, he gave me a choice of two projects. Neither were any good, and when the Head of Department saw me, he suggested (probably to keep me quiet) that I find my own project. Accordingly, I elected to enter a major controversy, namely were the wave functions of a cyclopropane ring localized (i.e., each chemical bond could be described by wave interference between a given pair of atoms, but there was no further wave interference) or were they delocalized, (i.e. the wave function representing a pair of electrons spread over more than one pair of atoms) and in particular, did they delocalize into substituents? Now, without getting too technical, I knew my supervisor had done quite a bit of work on something called the Hammett equation, which measures the effect or substituents on reactive sites, and in which, certain substituents that had different values when such delocalization was involved. If I could make the right sort of compounds, this equation would actually solve a problem.

This was not to be a fortunate project. First, my reserve synthetic method took 13 steps to get to the desired product, and while no organic synthesis gives a yield much better than 95%, one of these struggled to get over 35%, and another was not as good as desirable, which meant that I had to start with a lot of material. I did explore some shorter routes. One involved a reaction that was published in a Letter by someone who would go on to win a Nobel prize. The very key requirement to get the reaction to work was omitted in the Letter. I got a second reaction to work, but I had to order special chemicals. They turned up after I had submitted my thesis. They travelled via Hong Kong, where they got put aside and forgotten. After discovering that my supervisor was not going to provide any useful advice on chemical synthesis, he went on sabbatical, and I was on my own. After a lot of travail, I did what I had set out to do, but an unexpected problem arose. The standard compounds worked well and I got the required straight line set with minimum deviation, but for the key compound at one extreme of the line, the substituent at one end reacted quickly with the other end in the amine form. No clear result.

My supervisor made a cameo appearance before heading back to North America, where he was looking for a better paying job, and he made a suggestion, which involved reacting carboxylic acids that I already had in toluene. These had already been reported in water and aqueous alcohol, but the slope of the line was too shallow to be conclusive. What the toluene did was to greatly amplify the effect. The results were clear: there was no delocalization.

The next problem was the controversy was settling down, and the general consensus that there was such delocalization. This was based on one main observational fact, namely adjacent positive charge was stabilized, and there were many papers stating that it must on theoretical grounds. The theory used was exactly the same type of programs that “proved” the existence of polywater. Now the interesting thing was that soon everybody admitted there was no polywater, but the theory was “obviously” right in this case. Of course I still had to explain the stabilization of positive charge, and I found a way, namely strain involved mechanical polarization.

So, where did this get me? Largely, nowhere. My supervisor did not want to stick his head above the parapet, so he never published the work on the acids that was my key finding. I published a sequence of papers based on the polarization hypothesis, but in my first one I made an error: I left out what I thought was too obvious to waste the time of the scientific community, and in any case, I badly needed the space to keep within page limits. Being brief is NOT always a virtue.

The big gain was that while both explanations explained why positive charge was stabilized, (and my theory got the energy of stabilization of the gas phase carbenium ion right, at least as measured by another PhD student in America) the two theories differed on adjacent negative charge. The theory involving quantum delocalization required it to be stabilized too, while mine required it to be destabilized. As it happens, negative charge adjacent to a cyclopropane ring is so unstable it is almost impossible to make it, but that may not be convincing. However, there is one UV transition where the excited state has more negative charge adjacent to the cyclopropane ring, and my calculations gave the exact spectral shift, to within 1 nm. The delocalization theory cannot even get the direction of the shift right. That was published.

So, what did I learn from this? First, my supervisor did not have the nerve to go against the flow. (Neither, seemingly, did the supervisor of the student who measured the energy of the carbenium ion, and all I could do was to rely on the published thesis.) My spectral shifts were dismissed by one reviewer as “not important” and they were subsequently ignored. Something that falsifies the standard theory is unimportant? I later met a chemist who rose to the top of the academic tree, and he had started with a paper that falsified the standard theory, but when it too was ignored, he moved on. I asked him about this, and he seemed a little embarrassed as he said it was far better to ignore that and get a reputation doing something more in accord with a standard paradigm.

Much later (I had a living to earn) I had the time to make a review. I found over 60 different types of experiment that falsified the standard theory that was now in textbooks. That could not get published. There are few review journals that deal with chemistry, and one rejected the proposal on the grounds the matter was settled. (No interest in finding out why that might be wrong.) For another, it exceeded their page limit. For another, not enough diagrams and too many equations. For others, they did not publish logic analyses. So there is what I have discovered about modern science: in practice it may not live up to its ideals.