The Height of Temperatures. An Dinner Poser

How high can a temperature get?

By lim juboo



I was having a quiet and uneventful dinner last evening, and was least expecting anything to happen. So I thought?



A Medical Emergency?


All of a sudden my dinner was rudely interrupted. A Malay neighbour’s wife a few doors away rushed into my kitchen and called me to help in an emergency. I left everything, food still in my mouth, rushed over expecting some kind of life-death tragedy.



There I saw was her daughter barely 4 years old crying badly. I was told she knocked a pot of hot water in the kitchen over her. It was an accident. I dutifully examined her, expecting a bad scald. Fortunately it was not.



The very fact she was crying in pain immediately assured me the scald was not serious enough. Had it been much hotter burns from a flame, the burns would have destroyed the deeper dermis of her skin, and damage the nerves. In that case there would no longer be any pain. That would be a very serious burn. Even a boiling water scald can never exceed 100 deg C, and boiling water scalds do cause very severe pains, but no nerve damage.



In most cases of 30 burns, the patient may need antibiotics, sedatives, ATS / ATT (anti-tetanus serum / adsorbed tetanus toxoid) injections, and at a later stage, skin grafting. The burns in such cases are severe and would be a real medical emergency.



But in her case, there was just redness over her arms, legs, and neck, but fortunately her face and eyes were spared. Her thick non-absorbent clothes protected her body to a great extent. I assessed her as a first degree burn, and it also did not involve a very large area of her body.



That how we do a primary survey on a casualty to triage cases in a mass disaster, giving low priority for cases where a victim shouts a lot in pain.



But patients never understand why we need to leave them alone first, and very urgently attend to those who are unconscious and unable to utter a word.



Priority is given (triaged as red) for those who lose consciousness, and need instant attention to manage ABC (Airways, Breathing and Circulation) as a Trainer for St John Ambulance Malaysia.



But hers was just a minor event with a lot of shouting and crying. In fact I have not seen any real extensive 3 degree burns that require extensive care in my clinical attachment at the Emergency Department of Kuala Lumpur Hospital as a Trainer with St John Ambulance Malaysia.



Of course her mother viewed this differently, and I do not blame her for her worries and anxiety. In her case, cooling the affected area with running water will do, and some moderate analgesic like paracetamol, or ibuprofen may be given. Other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), although may be gastric irritating, may also be given to relieve pain. Her mother asked me if she could give her daughter aspirin for the pain, and I advised her not because of the risk of Reye's syndrome with aspirin for children.



I then told her to observe for post-burns infections, pus formation or fever. If blisters developed, I advised not to break them. They are there to protect against post burns infections. I also told them not to apply oil, butter, lotions, ointments, or even put any dressing on. Just leave the affected part dry. The pain and redness will soon go away, and the skin will quickly heal. If any signs of infection set in, she needs to be hospitalized immediately.



Had it been a serve thermal or electrical burn, I would immediately advise them to go to a hospital that has a special burn unit for intensive management. She may possibly need to sleep on an air-fluidized bed to prevent bed-skin contacts. But all these were unnecessary after I examined and assessed her.



It was not much of an event after all, but it was sufficient to spoil my quiet and peaceful dinner anyway!



How cold is coldest, how hot is the hottest?


I went back to my kitchen to finish my half-eaten dinner, and observed the beautiful hot blue propane-butane flame heating up the kettle of water for my mug of tea. I then thought to myself, just how hot can a flame get?



We know that there is a lower limit for temperature. It is the absolute zero, defined as a temperature of precisely 0 Kelvin, which is equal to −273.15 °C or −459.68 °F.


But I asked myself, if there is a lower scale of temperature, would there be an upper limit for temperature? I pondered over this as I continued my dinner.



This thought triggered me to write this article. But before that…



The School Experiments that Fascinated Me:


I remember enjoying seeing and hearing the hissing hot greenish-blue flame jetting out from an air-acetylene Bunsen burner in my school science laboratory when I first studied science in school. I used to be very fascinated by the colour and hissing sound of this flame. In fact I was fascinated by most of the experiments our school science teacher demonstrated to us.



I remember how a glowing wooden splinter burst into flame when trusted into a jar of oxygen, and how magnesium burns even more violently and brilliantly in oxygen. I remember how potassium and sodium burst into flames when put into a trough of water, and how carbon dioxide turns lime water (calcium hydroxide solution) milky as calcium carbonate is formed. It was the test for carbon dioxide.



I remember how blue litmus paper turned red in acid, and red litmus turned blue in alkaline. I remember how we can make ‘ammonia water fountain’ inside a round bottom flask because of the great solubility of ammonia in water that generated a ‘vacuum’ inside the flask for the water to be sucked up.



I remember a101 things about all those experiments and observations even as a small boy. I suppose these were the things that triggered my interest in science and mathematics (taught in English) as a young lad.



The Hottest Flame as a Lad:


By the time I reached Form 5, we were taught that the hottest chemical flame possible on Earth is the oxy-acetylene flame that reaches a maximum temperature of some 3,100 degrees Celsius (or Centigrade as we used in school those days).


When mixed with air, the air-acetylene flame is about 2,400 0 C. This was the prettiest and fascinating blue-green flames I used to enjoy watching hissing out warningly from a Bunsen burner.



But the oxy-hydrogen flame, attains a maximum of temperature of about 2,700 0 C, which is sufficiently hot for wielding, but when mixed with air, it is about 2,050 0 C.


The butane-propane gas mixture from our kitchen gas cylinder will burn in air with a flame that can reach about 1900 0 C. All these are fascinating figures to me.

Heat and Velocity:

By the time I got into upper Form 6 (A Levels Science) in Singapore, I learnt in classical mechanics the ideal gas law directly provides a relationship between kinetic energy of the particles and the temperature (T). It is given by:
1/2 mv2 rms = 3/2 kT
(where m is particle mass, and rms, the root-mean-square particle for the speed v)

In other words, the higher the temperature, the more energetic the gas particles, and the faster they move. So far, so good!


My career:


After completion of my university education in various courses, I embarked on a 25-year long professional career as a senior medical researcher in nutrition, rural health, community medicine, behavioural medicine, biostatistics, epidemiology, clinical research, traditional and complementary medicine at the Institute for Medical Research, Ministry of Health Malaysia and in food and medical toxicological research at MIT.


The Sun and Stars that Fascinate:


However, what fascinate me most are the stars and galaxies. I then began to study astronomy as a hobby instead. It was my childhood hobby, but set it aside for years because I wanted to concentrate on my higher education and professional career.



I began to recall what I studied in Science in school. I realize in chemistry class in school, the temperature from chemical combustion such as the oxy-acetylene flame actually pales into nothing in comparison to the temperature of nuclear reactions in the Sun. The temperature on the surface of the Sun for instance, is about 5,778 Kelvin (5505 °C). The Sun converts about 600,000,000 tons of hydrogen nuclei each second into helium nuclei.



These fusion reactions of hydrogen nuclei convert part of their atomic mass of some 4 million tons into energy, and release an enormous amount of energy into the Solar System. In short, the Sun loses some 4 million tons of mass each second. The Sun will run out of fuel in about 5 billion (5,000,000,000) years at this rate of nuclear consumption.



Surprisingly, 2,000 km above the Sun’s surface and temperatures soar to 100,000 Kelvin. The outer layer of the Sun, called the chromospheres, the temperatures arrive at 1 million Kelvin? The outermost most layer, the corona, the temperatures get into several million (degrees) Kelvin?



The temperature in the interior of the sun is even higher, to the tune of 15 million Kelvin?



The hottest stars found have a surface temperature of some 220,000 Kelvin or at least 40 times as hot as the surface of our sun. These belong to the O Class of bluish white stars which on an average have surface temperatures of 25,000-50,000 K or higher. That is searing hot. We have no idea what their interior temperatures are?



The Lower Scale:


So far so good! That is as far as we can get in practice. But what I have in mind as I write this thought here is, whether or not there a limit to the maximum height of temperatures? We know there is a limit of ‘coldness’ which is precisely absolute zero (zero Kelvin) or minus 273.15 ° Celsius. (minus 459.68 °F).



How Hot Up?


I reckon, if there a limit how cold we can go down the temperature scale, there must be a limit how hot we can get up the scale? But is there a upper theoretical limit to temperature? This is what I attempt to pen as my after dinner thoughts.



One source claimed that the maximum possible temperature is the Planck temperature, or 1.41679 x 1032 Kelvins. But how valid is this? I shall get back to this later.



The sun is pretty hot as I mentioned. It is easy for us, particularly me as a non physicist, to calculate out the amount of radiation the Sun emits by measuring the solar constant on Earth, namely the energy the sun radiated out within a sphere enclosed by a radius between the Sun and Earth whose mean distance is 1.496x108 km. We can measure the heat received per square metre here on the Earth’s surface.



We can then calculate back how much heat the Sun emitted over that Earth-Sun distance. I have done that a few times, and it tallied very precisely with the figures solar scientists have done using very advanced measurements and sophisticated calculations. But we will not go into that as it is not the subject of my thought for the moment.



Kinetics of Hot Gases:


Let us take a look at the kinetic energy of molecules instead. I remember well my ‘O Level’ physics even till this day. It tells us that the kinetic energy (E) of a moving particle is equal to ½ mv2



Where, ‘m’ symbolizes the mass of a particle and ‘v’ its velocity. If we solve ‘v’ in the equation E = ½ mv2, we get v = √ (2E /m) = 1.414 √ (E/m) …Equation 1



But since the kinetic energy is also a measure of its temperature (T) as I said earlier, we can then substitute ‘T’ for ‘E’ in Equation 1. The numerical constant will be changed for the equation to be expressed in SI Unit. We can then say that v = 0.158 √ (T/m) …Equation 2.



Now then, if in Equation 2 the temperature (T) is given in Kelvin, and the mass (m) of an atomic particle is given in atomic units, then the average velocity (v) of the particles will come out in kilometers per second.



Since 1 km = 0.621 miles, if we want to change the formula so that the results will come out in miles per second, all we need to do is to replace the constant 0.158 in the equation with 0.158 x 0.621 = 0.098 to give the answer in miles per second.



Molecular velocities:



For instance, the atomic mass unit of hydrogen atom, the commonest and most abundant atom in the universe is 1. But helium gas which the Sun converts from hydrogen, is composed of individual helium atoms, each with an atomic mass unit (amu) of 4, or more precisely, 4.002602 amu. Suppose we decide to freeze a cylinder of helium gas down to the freezing point of water (0 deg C) or 273 Kelvin. We now substitute 273 for ‘T’ and 4 in ‘m’ as in Equation 2.



We find that even if we decide to cool helium to 0 deg C, the helium atoms with an atomic mass of 4, will still be able to move about with an average velocity of 1.31 kilometers per second or 0.81 miles per second. The muzzle velocity of the fastest rifle bullet is 1500 m/s. This means a helium atom even if you decide to ‘freeze’ it to zero degree C, will still be able to fly out at the speed of the fastest rifle bullet.



Similarly we can work out for other values of ‘T’ and ‘m’. The velocity of oxygen molecules with an atomic or molar mass of 32 in a tropical temperature like Malaysia of 30 deg C (303 Kelvin) for instance, works out to be 0.158 √ (303 / 32) = 0.49 km / sec. or 0.30 miles per second.



The velocity of carbon dioxide molecules (molar mass of 44) at boiling point of water (373 K) turns out to be 0.46 km /sec. Argon atoms with an atomic mass unit of 39.948 when heated in an electric arc to 3000 0 C (3273 Kelvin) will move at a velocity of 1.4 km per second. We can work on this on and on for various atoms and molecules so long we know their atomic mass numbers and the temperatures they are being heated.



Equation 2 tells us that at any given temperature, the less massive the particle, the faster it moves. It also tells us that at absolute zero (where T = 0) the velocity of any atom or molecule, irrespective its mass, is always zero. This is another view point about the absoluteness of absolute zero. It is the temperature of almost absolute atomic or molecular rest where there is no heat or temperature. It is when temperature is at its lowest, and absolutely nothing could move.



But if a velocity of zero marks the lower limit, we may then ask isn’t there an upper limit to the velocity too? Isn’t this upper limit constrained by the velocity of light? In fact ‘yes’ this is true, at least theoretically.


So Have We Arrive?



When the temperature goes so high such that ‘v’ reaches the speed of light and can no longer climb higher, we may ask if we have reached the maximum and absolute upper limit of temperatures? It is tempting to say ‘yes’ and that could be the ultimate height of temperature or hotness? Let’s presumed it be so for the moment. But let us have another look at the equation


If we solve ‘T’ in Equation 2, it turns out:


T = 40 mv2

(where ‘T’ is in Kelvin, and ‘v’ in kilometers per second)



Let’s us now substitute the value ‘v’ (the molecular velocity) as equivalent to the maximum possible velocity which is the velocity of light at 299 792.458 kilometers per second. When we do that, it turns out that the maximum possible temperature
(T max) must be:



T Max = 3 600 000 000 000 Kelvin (Equation 3)



Now we may ask what about the value of ‘m’ (the mass of the particles in question)…Equation 4



We can see, the more massive the particle, the higher the maximum temperature! This puts the value of T max into question because of the varying values of atomic mass. We are right to question this validity.



Nuclear Fusion & Temperatures:


At temperatures to the tune of millions of Kelvin, all molecules and atoms will be broken down into nuclei. At temperatures of hundreds of millions and into the lower billions as in the Sun and stars, nuclear (fusion) reactions begin between simple nuclei to build up into complicated nuclei



At still upper temperatures, the reversal takes place where all nuclei will break apart into simple sub-atomic particles of protons and neutrons.



Let us make a theoretical assumption that in the region of the maximum possible temperature of over a trillion degree, only protons and neutrons can exist. These have a mass of 1 on the atomic scale.


Mathematically from Equation 3, we must are forced to wrap up that the maximum possible temperature is:


3 600 000 000 000 Kelvin (degrees) Kelvin


Or shall we rest at this point? Let us have another look.



Not Yet…?


For one thing, if we look at Equation 1 again we are only assuming that the value of ‘m’ always remain constant whatever its kinetic / dynamic status. But this is an assumption. We only assume that if a helium atom has an atomic mass of 4, it will always assume a mass of 4 under whatever conditions? But is this true? Well as a matter of fact the physics I studied in school makes no other assumption.



This would be true if we view the universe in the eyes of Sir Isaac Newton. But in a Newtonian universe there is no mathematical prescription to limit velocity and neither is there an upper limit to temperature.


Special Theory of Relativity:



But Albert Einstein saw this differently. The Einsteinian view of the universe he prescribed an upper limit of velocity, namely the velocity of light, and this offers us some doubt on an upper limit of heat if we do not consider mass a constant under any circumstances.


But the mass of any object no matter how infinitesimal small under ordinary conditions, as long as it is greater than zero, will increase in mass as its velocity increases. At least this is Einstein’s view in his equation on Special Relativity:


M = m / √ (1 – v 2 / c2)



Where M is new mass, m = rest mass at 0 velocity, v = velocity of mass, c = velocity of light



We can easily see that as the initial mass increases in velocity (v), and becomes closer and closer to light (c) the denominator (1 – v 2 / c2) tends towards zero. Hence when the rest mass (m) is divided by a zero denominator, the new mass (M) tends towards infinity. This means it could even be more massive than the Universe. In short, it tells us that any mass no matter how small, becomes indefinitely large as it gets closer and closer to the velocity of light.



At ordinary practical velocities say of no more than a few thousand kilometers per second, the increase in mass is quite insignificant, and there is nothing to worry about for Newtonian physicists except for hair-splitting and neurotic calculations by some scientists with obsessive compulsive disorder.



But when we are working at velocities close to the velocity of light, ‘m’ becomes very large and tends towards infinity irrespective its initial particle mass. If we do that, we find consequently there will be no upper limit for ‘T max’



No Answer?


We have now no choice but to conclude there may after all no ‘maximum’ practical or theoretical limits to temperature, whether in an Newtonian or an Einsteinian universe. So is that all, and there is really no maximum to the height of temperature?



However, I have earlier promised I shall get back to what some physicists claim that the maximum possible temperature is the Planck temperature of 1.41679 x 1032 Kelvins?



Disturbed Thought:


Now, this is very disturbing to me.


If the Planck temperature of 1.41679 x 1032 Kelvin is truely the maximum temperature theoretically possible according to scientists specializing in quantum physics, it would be interesting to work out what the velocity would be, say of a hydrogen atom at that temperature?



We shall use this same equation in classical mechanics, a principle first developed by Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli to determine the velocity of atomic particle



I shall show you how at very high temperatures this equation in classical mechanics is longer valid and need to be replaced by relativistic mechanics. Let us give it a try.


Since T = 40 mv2


Rearrange,

V2 = T/40m

∴ V = √ (T/40m)

Since 1.41679 x 1032 =40 mv2

Let the atomic mass unit (m) of hydrogen is 1


Then V = √ (1.41679 x 1032 /40) = 1.8820 x 1015 km s-1



As we can see, at Planck temperature of 1.41679 x 1032 Kelvins, the velocity of a hydrogen atom, or any particle would be 1.8820 x 1015 km per sec?



We know that the velocity of light is 299 792 458 metres (299 792.458 km) per sec. But this is a lot faster than light. Naturally this is not possible. It only shows that classical mechanics of kinetic energy can no longer be applied for such extremely ultra high temperature. It is only valid for speeds are lower than that of light.


Relativistic Mechanics


We need to switch into relativistic mechanics to deal with motions where energy levels subject particles near the speed of light or even faster than light.


Let us assume Planck temperature is possible, and that sub atomic particles travel faster than light. If that is so, let us get back to the equation:


M = m / √ (1 – v 2 / c2)


If physicists think that ‘v’ (velocity of sub-atomic particles at Planck temperature) > ‘c’ (velocity of light), then (v 2 / c2) would be greater than 1 (where v > c)


In that case (1 - >1) = a negative number. But in mathematics we know that we cannot get the square root of a negative number. Such a number is not real. It is an imaginary number (i)


An Imaginary Universe?


If such temperature 1.41679 x 1032 is possible, than it must belong to another universe, an imaginary universe, or a negative universe opposite to ours?


I really do not know the answer myself from the mathematical logic I have just work out for you. I leave this to you to strain your own imagination.



But if you think this temperature is possible (like some physicist think), then I have to admit this type of quantum physics beats me. It is completely beyond me. Perhaps the brainer physicists can explain how they arrive at Planck temperature. I am not capable of doing that. As far as I have worked out in this simple article of mine, they may not be an upper limit to temperature after all, whether from the classical Newtonian universe point of view, or in an Einsteinian universe.



The Real Universe:


So far spectral measurements of some of the hottest stars are in the region of only 50 000 -60 000 Kelvin. They are the blue stars in the ‘O’ Class. But none has been found to exceed a temperature of 250,000 Kelvin, and it may well be that is probably the hottest in a practical sense we can get to in the universe. In such case, even in temperature of 250 000 Kelvin, subatomic particles would have a velocity of just 79 kilometers per second.


My Simple Dinner Thoughts:


I am after all a retired government medical scientist and now a free lance physician who would shy from arguing with the brainer quantum physicists.



My thought on the physics of temperatures is only a simple one. I mulled over this question during my interrupted dinner after attending a medical emergency call from a neighbor.



It was not much of a medical event for me after all, but a deeper thought for me and others to argue about.


ljb


December 12, 2011

Our Infinitesimal Human Life

The following is an extension of my thought after I casually mentioned ‘No Men Should Play God’ which was posted into Ir. Lau Onn Tai’s blog at:


http://taionn.blogspot.com/2011/06/artificial-organ-regrowth-for-eternal.html


Let us ponder further

Let us take 100 years as the maximum life span of a human being.


A 100 years in a human life there are: 100 years x 365.25 days in a Solar Year x 24 hours in a day x 60 minutes in an hour x 60 seconds in a minute = 3 155 760 000 seconds.


The age of the Observable Universe is about 13. 7 billion years old. This was according to Hubble’s law which was based on spectral red shift measurements.



However more recent measurements suggest it could be as old as 20 billion (20 x 109) years.


Let us take the latest estimate and assume it to be 20 x 10 9 years old or 6.31152 x 10 17 seconds. Let us then take 3 155 760 000 seconds (100 years) be the life span of a human being.


If 20 x 10 9 years was to be super-compressed into a 24 hour day, then 100 years has also to be super-compressed into just 3 155 760 000 seconds ÷( 20 x 10 9 x 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 or 6.31152 x 10 17 seconds) = 5 x 10 -9 second .


The speed of light is 299792458 ms -1 (299792.458 km hr – 1 )


Thus in 5 x 10 -9 second there is only sufficient time for light to travel to 1.49896229 meters


According to physicist Niels Bohr, electrons orbit only at certain distances from the nucleus, depending on their energy level. The simplest atom is the hydrogen with just a single electron orbiting around its nucleus and its smallest possible orbit, with the lowest energy level is called the Bohr radius.


Thus the Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom has a value of 5.2917720859(36) × 10−11 m or approximately 1.058354417 x 10-10 m in diameter.


This is the most likely the position of the electron from its nucleus when it is at 0 Kelvin and unexcited.


This means it will take 1.49896229 meters ÷ 1.058354417 x 10-10 m (diameter of diameter of a hydrogen atom) = 1.4 x 1010 (14 billion) hydrogen atoms lined up side-by-side for light to cross them in that diminutive 5 x 10-9 (5 billionth) of a second.


The mass of 14 billion hydrogen atoms


One hydrogen atom has a mass of 1.66 x 10-27 kg
Therefore 1.4 x 10 10 hydrogen atoms will have a mass of 2.32 x 10-17 kg


We can also calculate the mass of 14 billion hydrogen atoms in another way by applying Avogadro's number, which is approximately 6.022×1023 (1 mole).

Example: 1.00 grams H × (6.02 × 1023) / 1.01 grams (atomic mass of hydrogen) = 5.96 × 1023 atoms of hydrogen

Therefore 1.4 x 1010 hydrogen atoms
= Y (6.02 x 10 23) / 1.01 grams = 1.4 x 10 10 atoms

Where Y is the weight of hydrogen atoms


If y (6.02 x 10 23) = 1.01 x 1.4 x 10 10
Therefore y = 1.01 x 1.4 x 10 10 / (6.02 x 10 23) = 2.348837 x 10-14 gm or 2.34 x 10-17 kg


Total Mass of the Observable Universe:


The mass of for all the atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be 1.53×1053 kg


If this mass can be scaled down like time proportionally from 20 billion years into a 24 hour time scale, it means that all the mass in the observable universe is only 1.53 x 10 53 kg / (20 x 109 x 365.25 x 24 x 60 x60) = 1.53 x 10 53 / 6.31152 1017

= 2.424 x 10 35 kg

That means we will weigh only 2.34 x 10-17 kg or 0.000 000 000 000 000 0234 kg in comparison.


Fancy that! That’s life!


Unfortunately that is all the infinitesimal short time we have on Earth. Regrettably that represents the life span of a human on Earth if the age of the Universe at 20 x 10 9 (20 billion) years were to be telescoped down to a 24 hour day for comparison.


Isn’t that amazing? Even my simple mathematics here does not lie.


Quote (Bible): Your life is like the morning fog--it's here a little while, then it's gone. ... It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth

(James 4:14)


Quote (William Shakespeare): To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing

(Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28)


- ju-boo lim

Binoculars for Astronomical Observation

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your SMS inquiry on which binoculars and magnification to buy for star gazing.


Light-gathering, not magnification:

The highest magnification to choose is one not more than 10 X. The most important thing in buying a telescope or binoculars for astronomical observation is not the magnification, but their ability to gather faint lights light years away.


It is the ‘light gathering’ capacity of the binoculars that counts, and not the magnification as most people think, or erroneously brain-washed to think. Most people are impressed by ‘magnification’ but only those who knows how to choose for astronomical uses, look for the size of the objective lens, and never the power of the eyepieces


The distant galaxies and stars:

The stars and all other stellar objects are so far away that no matter how much magnification you try to increase, you can never magnify the stars, or even the planets large enough except the Moon to have any meaning. All you see is just a point of light, and nothing larger.


The exception:

The Moon which is the nearest heavenly body and has plenty of light, does magnification counts more than light. It is the only exception if you are only thinking of lunar observation with a pair of binoculars. Even small telescopes can enlarge the planets for their disc to be visible.

But this is not so for the far-off stars. You can never expect to see details on the stars even by attempting to magnify them with large telescopes. You see nothing but just a point of light – the bigger the lens diameter, the brighter the point of light. No disc can be seen on stars which are light years away.



Faint lights to gather:

What is important is the ability for binoculars as well as for telescopes to gather as much light as possible of the very faint and distant stars, galaxies and nebulae. For that, you need as large a lens diameter as possible. That is why the larger the lens or mirror sizes of the objective, even for huge astronomical telescopes in observatories, the better details with the telescope. If you can gather as much light as possible from the faint stars and other deep sky objects you would be able to see them better. This applies also for binoculars.


Best combination of objective diameter and magnification:

For hand held binoculars which no one can hold in their hands for very long if you want to look upwards into the sky? You will ‘break your neck and back’ at the same time if you stand in that position holding a pair of binoculars. The best lens size to choose for a 10 X magnification binoculars is a 50 mm lens diameter. This combination is the best.


My strong recommendation is a 10 X 50 mm (maximum magnification) or a 7 X 50 mm (for wider field and brightness). This is the best buy for binoculars for astronomical observation as well as for terrestrial uses like bird-watching, scenery enjoyment, and looking at far off objects like ships at sea.


Dilutes the light, magnifies hand movements:


Moreover, if you are thinking of using a pair of binoculars for astronomical use, any magnification higher than 10 times, not only ‘dilutes’ the limited available light from the stars by spreading it over a larger area through magnification, but the magnification itself also magnifies the hand movements as you hold the binoculars.

Thus you will find the stars or faint deep sky objects not only much dimmer but also ‘dancing’ with every beat of your heart and with every tiny movement of your hands. You see nothing but just star lights dancing to and fro, and zigzagging in your field of view. It is not much to see like that. It is no worth it.


Narrower and narrower the field of view:

Over and above that, you will find the angle of view also becomes narrower, and the higher the power, the narrower the field of view, making it harder and harder to locate an object. This is so unlike looking at terrestrial objects in the day time where available light is not a problem, and objects are large and much easier to locate.

Harder and harder to hold up:

Not only just that, but the higher the magnification the heavier the binoculars or telescope, and it is impossible to hold it up for too long


7 X 10 mm is the best:

The best selection to my mind and experience, is a 7 X 50 mm, and at maximum a 10 X 50 mm binoculars, but never higher than that. A 7 X 50 mm offers the best view. It has the widest field of view, it is the lightest, and much easier to hold with the hands, and at the same time, it gives the brightest image which is exactly what you want for astronomy where all the celestial objects are so very dim when they lie light years away.


Anything bigger or higher, you need a tripod stand to hold it up as it is not possible to hold the instrument with your hands for more than a few minutes while bending your neck and back backwards looking up at the same time.


Do not be tempted to buy anything ‘more powerful.’ The higher the magnification and the larger the objective lens, the heavier they will be. They will be so heavy you would not be able to hold them up with your hands for very long unless you have a tripod stand to support them.


The best (armchair) method:

But the best and most comfortable method to use binoculars to avoid neck-breaking observation into the sky is to use a reclining arm-chair. Just adjust the reclining chair flat or almost flat and lie down on it (supine position). There you are, you will be so comfortable without the need to bend your neck and back. You need just hold the binoculars with your hands while resting the arms on a pillow or on the arm rests.


It is as simple and comfortable as that. It is very cheap and restful too when looking upwards. Your whole body is already looking upwards into the sky. You will not have arm, neck and back aches. That way, you can hold them up for hours and do all your observations while still lying down. It is so comfortable and restful you might fall asleep on your arm-chair while mid-way through observation. But you can have an alarm clock to wake you up when a celestial object of interest is overhead or over the meridian.


Which brand to buy?

As to this question, there are now a number of binoculars made in China which are not bad. Their optics are good. I bought one myself from a scientific instrument company near my place here in Gombak. It cost me just RM 150 some 10 years ago. You can get a China-made one these days for less than RM 200. They are just as good as those Japanese branded models which may cost 5 times as much.


However, instead of buying a pair of binoculars for astronomy, you can buy a hand-held and very portable reflective astronomical telescope called ‘Astroscan’ from the United Sates. Its mirror is 6 inches which is not bad for amateur astronomers.


I would recommend that if you just have amateur astronomy in mind.


Wish you happy viewing.


lim ju boo

Founder, and First President
The Astronomical Society of Malaysia

Allergy to Gluten in Bread (Part 2)

General Adaptation Syndrome:


Even this natural approach of challenging the body with the offensive substance (the allergen) by introducing bit-by-bit in small doses until the body goes into immunological exhaustion, and until it cannot respond clinically anymore, seemingly looks a far better therapeutic option than the conventional method of using powerful anti-allergic drugs to suppress the symptoms, this in my opinion, is still harmful.


Protective Mechanisms:


One must understand the signs and symptoms are not a disease per sec, but there merely programmed there by the body as alarm bells to serve as warnings that something is not right, and the root causes need to be removed.


Stages of Pathogenesis:


Symptoms are just protective mechanisms programmed there by Mother Nature to protect us, and they should never be silenced with powerful drugs, or worked on until they cannot respond to a threat anymore. The body will first ring the warning bee (alarm stage), and if this ignored or suppressed with drugs, it will slip into a silent and unresponsive phase (asymptomatic stage), and if this again is neglected (the pathology is still reversible at this stage), it will finally sink into the third, last and irreversible phase – the degenerative stage.


The Smoker’s Dilemma:


There are hundreds of examples of the progression of a disease in medicine. But I shall cite just one example of a smoker who has never smoked before. The initial protective stage (alarm stage) when he inhales the smoke of a cigarette is the reflex action of coughing as the body tries to reject the smoke. But if he ignores this signal and warning bell, he sinks into the next stage called the silent stage (no more symptoms, no more coughing, no more warning bells…). He then continues to ‘enjoy’ smoking without realizing the dangers.


If he still continues to smoke, the progression of harm will continue to spiral into the final and last stage called the ‘degenerative stage’ with outcome like chronic bronchitis, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, (COPD), and finally…cancer of the lungs. This is the scenario.


Stress injuries:


Allergy, like smoking is a stress-related disease. The word ‘stress’ does not just mean emotional, psychological , work, financial, or social stresses, but anything - environmental, nutritional, chemical, metabolic, endocrinal, pathogenic, exogenous (outside the body), endogenous (within the body)… any thing at all that challenges the ability of the body to cope and adapt to the changes. If it fails to adapt, disease set in. In fact almost all chronic and degenerative diseases of modern life-styles are all stress-related.


This is just one of the hundreds of examples why the incidence of chronic and degenerative diseases are on the rise – cancers, cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases like diabetes mellitus, hypertriglyceridemia (high blood triglycerides) , high cholesterol, osteoporosis… etc. They are all nutritional, life-styles, environmental, occupational and exposure diseases.


The frog in a pot:


This is like the analogy of a frog being put into a pot of water, and the heat slowly turned on till the frog is cooked to death without jumping off or realizing it.

Thus even though we can work the body into allergenic exhaustion by challenging it with small doses of food and non-food allergens over time as I have described, the best approach is still prevention.


A Second Thought:


I have instituted this treatment protocol (allergen immunotherapy) on a few of my patients before, but on hind thought, this was still not a very good approach in the management. Preventive medicine is far, far better than ‘curative’ medicine. Once a degenerative disease sets in there is no cure. You can only control (not cure) it through life-long pharmacological intervention till death from other related diseases set in. This is gospel truth.


The best approach still, is to assist the patient in a qualified and professional way to identify the offending substance(s). This is a very long procedure through lengthy and elaborate questionnaires, history-taking, combined with skin patch tests, logging and recording procedures. Finally, there is a need to help the patient through education and practical counseling. It is not an easy job.


Attempting to change life style and food habits … be it trying to avoid peanuts, bread, cow’s milk, shell-fish, bee pollens, or even meeteh is an enormous challenge for a very enduring and a well-trained nutritionist or a caring physician.


Dr Han Selye:


This principle on life-style and stress-related diseases is called General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS). It was first put forward by a very eminent Hungarian-Canadian physician and endocrinologist by the name of Dr. Hans Hugo Bruno Selye.


Allergy is a stress-related disease, and the word ‘stress’ does not just mean emotional, psychological , work, financial, or social stresses, but anything - environmental, nutritional, chemical, metabolic, endocrinal, pathogenic, exogenous (outside the body), endogenous (within the body)… any thing at all that challenges the ability for the body to cope and adapt to the changes. If it fails to adapt, disease set in. In fact almost all chronic and degenerative diseases of modern life-styles are all stress-related.


This principle in medicine applies to all pathogenic (disease) situations, including medical emergency and trauma.


Harmful short-cuts:


Don’t take short cuts with all those drugs, or even immunotherapy with vaccines or food desensitization programmes. It requires enormous efforts by the health-care professionals (doctors, nutritionists, nurses, counselors) and a very high degree of cooperation and compliance by the patient. It is not an easy job.


Welfare of patient, first:


One of the gold standards in the practice of good and ethical medicine which we as physicians take, when solemnizing the Oath in Latin is ‘Primum Non Nocere’ to mean ‘first do no harm’


Unfortunately patients oftentimes are not interested in counseling and education. They only want to get rid of the symptoms as quickly as possible. To them this is ‘good medicine’ So doctors capitalize on this weakness using harmful fast action drugs which pharmaceutical companies are only too happy to promote hand-in-gloves.


lim ju boo

Possibility of Sudden Bread Allergy (Part 1)

A letter dated 27 February 2011 from Ir. Tan Seng Khoon to a certain David was received by me. The content is below:

David,


Are you saying you are allergic to MeeTeh?
As a matter of scientific curiosity, what was the cause?
Are you diabetic? Or was the MeeTeh polluted? I am just doing research.


Dr Lim Ju Boo and myself had a dear friend named John Batzer. One day John came to my house for Astro Society business. He told me that he had suddenly for no rhyme or reason, developed an allergy to BREAD.


He said that to anything that had wheat, he developed skin problem. So I was immensely astounded and dumbfounded. Because it was so strange and illogical.


Regards,


Khoon


My comment to Ir. Seng Khoon follows:


Dear Ir Tan,


Thank you for your letter to David, a copy I have received. Allow me to comment on this.



I understand your confusion with Mr. Batzer’s case when he said he suddenly developed an allergy to bread. I know you are an engineer, I don’t expect you understand medical issues.


It is possible for any person to suddenly develop an allergy to certain foods. This is true for anything he applies to his body, he smells or inhales.


Let me briefly explain this in a very simple way that would be reachable to everybody. When a foreign substance especially proteins, but not necessary, enters the body, two things can happen


The Scenarios:


1. Nothing happens

2. The body reacts violently to the foreign body or agent.


In the event when nothing happens, it either means his immunological defenses are either:


1. Clinically unresponsive

2. Serologically positive


This means antibodies were produced, but was not clinically apparent. There was no symptoms (asymptomatic). This stage was a sub-clinical stage due to the very low presence of antibodies.



Blood samples taken may show the presence of antibodies like IgE on mast cells and basophils. In short, it is already sero-positive. But it has not peaked yet. The body was challenged repeatedly by the antigen (foreign protein) in previous exposures until it goes into exhaustion. Serologically it may also be negative. In other words it was tested to be sero-positive, but clinically it was unresponsive and has no symptom (asymptomatic).



In the event the body reacts violently as in scenario 2 above, this means the body has been challenged repeatedly by very small doses of a foreign protein in the past (example: wheat protein in bread, cow’s milk, shellfish, peanuts, legumes, serums, vaccines, etc), but the body tolerated them without showing any signs of ill effects or moderate clinical events (example urticaria, known as welts, beehives and flares).


The presentations:


Other events are vasodilatation, hypotension, flushing, headache, tachycardia (increased heart rates), and bronchoconstriction (mimics bronchial asthma in presentation).


This means the built up of antibodies against the antigen is now sufficient to evoke or elicit a serious and life threatening event such as angiooedema (swelling of the face, body, or more seriously, asphyxiation (airway obstruction and suffocation), and subsequent respiratory arrest.
This is a medical emergency and requires instant medical and pharmacological interventions (example: injection of sub-cutaneous adrenaline, airways intubation, and supplemental oxygen.


Sub-clinical, but sero-positive:


In Mr. Batzer’s case as you described, it was very possible that he was tolerant to bread (wheat protein or gluten to be more technically correct) for some time in previous dietary or medical history. Meantime, his body did not response clinically to the allergenic challenge but there was a serological built up of serum antibodies titers (amount or levels in blood).


The antigen (allergen) evolves the body to produce specific antibodies (normally, IgE immunoglobulins) against the antigen to form antigen-antibodies complexes. Antigen-antibody complexes are mediators of immune responses, sometimes called an immune complex.Thus even if a patient did not show presentations of an allergic reaction clinically, a blood sample drawn from such a patient may show the presence of specific antigen-antibody complexes in his serum.


In short he is asymptomatic, but he is sero-positive. In other words, there was a sub-clinical serological response. This scenario of events is well known to us in physiology or medicine, in immunology or in nutrition.


The parable:


Let me give you a simple parallel analogy, Jesus always likes to illustrate with parables. Suppose there was a country that has no army (antibodies). One day enemies (antigen) start to invade. The country was without defense. It remained silent and let the enemies come in without any struggle.


Meantime the country was repeatedly challenged. It became necessary to fight. It initially only can afford to build up a small one. It was challenged again. The army began to gather in numbers strength (the titer). One day another attack came. This time it has sufficient strength to put up a resistance. If it is just a small one there is only minor casualties (pruritus or itchiness, urticarial rash, weal and flares).


But if it has sufficient built-up, it would be an all out war with tremendous casualties (angiooedema, asphyxiation, anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock. There may also may also a possibility of angioneurotic and haemodynamic shocks).


So it was not surprising that Mr. Batzer suddenly develop an allergy to bread (gluten intolerance). I have a few patients in the past with this problem. They went to their doctors previously, but it did not help with the medicines their doctors prescribe.


If you have an allergic problem, you should always be seen by an allergist or an immunologist. He is a doctor who specializes in allergic diseases. He is able to determine the causes of the allergy by skin or patch tests This most effective way is based on the patient's history. The sensitivity and specificity of skin testing methods may be compared with skin prick testing alone.


This is often sufficient to identify or exclude immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated hypersensitivity, including food allergy.


The Right Doctor:


An immunologist, an allergist or an occupational therapist is the right doctor to consult in an allergic reaction. He should be able to explain in detail to the patient the nature of the condition, and from various skin tests, he may be able to identify the specific antigen or allergen he is sensitive to.


Sufferers of an allergy may be a life-long condition each time his immunological surveillance is challenged by the allergen. Although this can be treated with drugs each time it flares up, treatment with drugs is not the long term solution. Allergies are life-style or occupational diseases, hence modifications of life-style, dietary habits and environment exposures, and not drugs, is the only answer. A holistic approach need to be taken in its management. Always, treat the root causes, not suppress the symptoms with drugs



Consult the correct physician:


Thus it is not advisable to go to an ordinary doctor or a GP for consultation for life-style diseases. All they know and can do is to give you some anti-allergic medication, and a 1-2-day medical certificate. You will be back to square one after the episode is over with the antihistamine. The root causes may still be there. These anti-allergic drugs are called antihistamines, or pharmacologically called histamine antagonists or blockers. There are a large numbers of them. Examples are: Cetirizine, Chlorpheniramine, Diphenhydramine, Pheniramine, Promethazine, etc, etc.


The Pharmacodynamics:


These agents act pharmacologically as H1 antagonist or a histamine antagonist of the H1 receptor whose role is to reduce or eliminate effects mediated by histamine. Histamine is an endogenous chemical mediator released during allergic reactions. Agents where the main therapeutic effect is mediated by negative modulation of histamine receptors are termed an antihistamine.


Antihistamines are drugs that compete with histamines for their receptor sites, known as H1 and H2 receptor sites. When the antihistamine binds itself to the H1 receptor site, it prevents histamine from doing the same, which effectively eliminates histamine action. Histamine is produced by basophils and by mast cells found in nearby connective tissues


Mast Cells & Antigen-Antibodies Complexes:


Mast cells release histamine and other substances that control local blood flow and attract other cell types of the immune system to the area. Mast cells can be activated by a variety of mechanisms. IgE antibodies are a special class of antibody that attaches itself to receptors on the mast cell. If a foreign substance (an antigen) attaches itself to the bound IgE antibody, the mast cell becomes activated leading to histamine release and initiation of an allergic



Antihistamines attach themselves to histamine receptors on cell surfaces. This competitive inhibition prevents histamine molecules from attaching to the receptors consequently inhibiting activation of the cell and interrupting the sequence of the allergic reaction. Histamine is a messenger substance released by the mast cell.



With these antihistamine agents may cause a patient to become drowsy and have xerostomia (dry mouth) among other side-effects reaction.



The Choice of Therapy:


What you need if you have an allergy is to consult an allergist who is a doctor specializing in this area. He should be able to educate the patient about this problem, conduct skin and sensitivity tests to identify the allergen, perhaps even the source, and explain to him. He may institute a therapeutic regimen to desensitize him to the allergen (the agent that causes allergic reaction). This form of therapeutic approach is called allergen immunotherapy.


There are several ways of doing this. One approach is through vaccination with increasing doses of the allergen with the aim of inducing the body to go into exhaustion, namely increasing immunological tolerance



Allergen Immunotherapy:


Allergen specific immunotherapy is the only treatment strategy which treats the underlying cause of the allergic disorder. It is a highly cost-effective treatment strategy which results in an improved quality of life,


Since most allergies are food-related another simpler approach in desensitizing is to reintroduce the offensive food bit by bit in very, small amounts that are not sufficient to elicit an acute allergic event.


Challenge the body slowly this way until they body goes into total exhaustion, or becomes resistant to the offending food. I have used this dietary approach on a number of my patients previously with excellent results.



Dietetic & Nutrition Therapy:


Another alternative approach is to keep a record on all the foods which a patient is sensitive to. Keep a log book to identify the foods over 3 months, and apply the desensitizing therapy, or avoid list of foods completely. I believe this is the best approach.


However, you need to consult a qualified dietician familiar with this approach, or a qualified and registered clinical nutritionist to assist you. He should be professionally competent to administer this dietotherapeutic modality as a permanent solution to patients with food allergies.


Don’t go to a GP for this problem. All he knows is to give you one of those antihistamines I have already named above. Consult other appropriately trained and qualified health-care professionals who are more familiar and competent to handle this problem.


Drugs not the solution:


Drugs can never, never solve life-style health problems. Only education, modification of dietary, occupational and exposure habits and rehabilitation can, and permanently also. Use antihistamines only as an immediate and short-term measure only in an acute attack.


Although the aetiology (causes) is usually attributable to food, there are also many non-food allergens. They can also be cosmetics, perfumes, rubber, toiletries, drugs, nickel, copper, plastics, pollens, fur of animals, flowers, plants, grass, carpets, bed-bugs, excreta of insects, etc, etc


Rehabilitative Medicine:


Education is the proper way to treat a patient. It is not merely dishing out the medicine and tell the patient ‘satu biji, tiga kali sehari, sebelum or selapas makan’. (one tablet 3 times a day, before food, after food). That’s not the way to treat a patient. Nor is it for the management of chronic diseases.



Maybe at best in this case with antihistamines, the doctor will tell you to take the medicine at night before sleep, and don’t drive or operate a machine. But they will not tell you about how these drugs affect urination, vision, confusion and other ADR (adverse drug reactions).


Rudeness and Discourteous:


I have 4 patients previously with allergic reactions to certain food. They went to see their doctors many times without much effect. They were only given antihistamines. They found out that they were even allergic to antihistamines. They told their doctors this. Instead of helping them find other ways of managing the cases, the doctors became angry and very rude to them.


They told them 'Apah! U doktor atau saya doktor, Apah U tahu? (What! are you the doctor or Am I the doctor? What do you know?').



They told the patients what did they know about the medicine he prescribed?



This was very rude and discourteous to their patients, amounting to be very egoistic and self-centered.



Intolerance to Antihistamines:



Sometimes patients get arrogant and ignorant doctors who get angry when patients tell him that they are allergic even to the anti-allergic medicine itself which was supposed to protect them against allergies? This is not surprising as there area many documented cases of drug intolerance including antihistamines themselves.



In the practice of medicine we are dealing with people with varying biological systems and makeup. There are no two persons who are alike like mechanical robots. Our reactions to drugs vary quite widely from patient-to-patient. Adverse drug reaction or ADR is very common phenomena among drug users. This is an area in pharmacology, and it is outside our scope here to discuss this further.


The Complaints:



I have heard from own patients many times that a lot of arrogant and egoistic doctors will reply back by asking the patient ‘apa, u doktor, atau I doktor’ (What! are you a doctor, or am I the doctor?). This is very conceited, conceited to the highest degree!


Very conceited and egocentric some of them are. They only think only they know, and that the patient knows next-to-nothing. The ‘consultation’ was just a one way street. The patient is just there to follow like a machine. . But fortunately most doctors are courteous and do listen to their patients. But there are also quite of them who are egoistic. This is wrong, very unprofessional, and socially very repulsive.


A doctor should never, never be rude or discourteous to his patient. A patient calls his physician ‘doctor’ because this is only a courtesy title given to him out of respect, and not because the physician, essentially a clinician, is technically or academically entitled to it. A physician or medical doctor is technically and legally not a doctorate holder. It is just a courtesy title given to him. He must respect that. So a medical doctor or a physician should never be rude or discourteous to his patients if he wants his patients also to be courteous to him so as to retain that title.


The Meaning of Doctor:


The original meaning of the word ‘doctor’ means ‘teacher’ – someone who teaches others (example a patient), and not someone who just give out the medicine and merely ask the patient to follow his orders. The patient has every right to ask, to question, and to refuse a treatment. This is ethics a doctor needs to observe and respect. The doctor cannot just ask a patient to do as he is told, and just take the medicine as he prescribes and ask no question. A lot of my own patients complain to me about the rudeness of some doctors.


Technically the real doctor is a holder of a doctorate degree, the highest degree a university can bestow on someone with the highest learning. He is a teacher so that he can teach others. That’s the original Aramaic word to mean a doctor, a philosopher, a teacher, a sage, or someone with great learning.


The History of Medicine:


A medical doctor is just a courtesy title given to a physician. That is why a surgeon in the UK is addressed as ‘Mr.’ and not ‘Dr’. Historically a surgeon in England was a physician who decided to cut. Hence he is called a ‘barber physician’ – someone who cuts and not a physician or a medical doctor who treats with medications. You need to read the History of Medicine to understand this. You may check this out with the Medical History Section of The Royal Society of Medicine where I am a Life Fellow.


The address is:


The Royal Society of Medicine
1 Wimpole Street
London



So, I hope I am able to answer your question about Mr. Batzer sudden allergy to bread. It was a medical possibility and a logical one.



Kind regards.



lim ju boo