The goal of this blog is to create a long list of facts that are important, not trivia, and that are known to be true yet are either disputed by large segments of the public or highly surprising or misunderstood by many.
Super fact 65 : The United States covers approximately 6.14% of Earth’s total land area. Despite that approximately 75% of the world’s tornadoes occur in the United States, making the risk of a tornado in the US 46 times higher than in the rest of the world. Tornadoes are particularly common in Tornado alley. Canada is the country with the second-highest number of tornadoes globally.
Our neighborhood was ravaged by an EF3 tornado in the evening of October 20, 2019. Today is the six year anniversary of that event. One year ago, I was interviewed by the NBC about this event. Yes, I was on TV. NBC had found me via my Leonberger dog blog. I’ve included the clip below.
It appears that the most common statistics stated by reliable sources is that approximately 75% of the world’s tornadoes occur in the United States (click here, here, or here). As stated, 75% is an approximate number and another common number is 90%. 90% might be overstated because smaller tornadoes are underreported in the rest of the world. Whether the correct number is 75% or 90% it is clear that the United States has the most tornadoes. It is the Tornado Country of the world.
It is quite astonishing that one country, the United States, has such a high concentration of this extreme weather phenomenon. Most Americans know that their country is special in this regard. I’ve met a lot of Europeans (I am from Europe / Sweden myself) who thinks tornadoes is just Hollywood thing. However, it is a real and very common phenomenon in the United States, and that is surprising to much of the rest of the world. It is also an important extreme weather phenomenon that kills a lot of people and causes billions of dollars in damage every year. This is why I consider “United States is Tornado Country” a super fact.
A tornado. Stock Photo ID: 2369175167 by g images.com.
Tornado Alley
Tornadoes can happen anywhere, but as mentioned they are more common in North America and especially in tornado-alley. Despite tornado alley’s small size, a quarter of all significant tornadoes in the world occurred there according to a study (1921 – 1995). The extent of tornado alley includes north Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, and the corners of Minnesota, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. Dallas, where we live, is in Tornado Alley.
Map showing Tornado Alley. It includes north Texas / Dallas. Stock Vector ID: 1719764089 by Adansijav Official.
Dixie Alley
Another region with a lot of tornadoes is Dixie Alley. Dixie Alley stretches from eastern Texas and Arkansas across Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and mid to western Kentucky to upstate South Carolina and western North Carolina; the area reaches as far north as southeast Missouri.
Dixie Alley has fewer tornadoes than Tornado Alley, but they tend to be deadlier and more violent than in Tornado Alley. The tornadoes in Dixie Alley occur year-round, at night, and the Tornadic storms in Dixie Alley are often high precipitation supercells due to an increase of moisture from proximity to the nearby Gulf of Mexico. The heavy rain makes it difficult to detect the tornadoes. Dixie Alley also has more mobile homes, homes tend to not have basements, and it is more densely populated than Tornado Alley. NOAA records indicate that the majority of deaths from tornadoes in the US have occurred in Dixie Alley.
Another related issue that has been brought to me is that many Europeans do not know the difference between a hurricane and a tornado. This is not strange since both of these extreme weather phenomena are less common in Europe.
A hurricane is a big rotating storm system originating in the ocean that sometimes makes landfall and devastates our coasts. Hurricanes are big, thousands of square miles and even a million square miles. A hurricane has wind speeds of 74 miles per hour (mph) or higher. That’s 119 kilometers per hour or 33 meters per second. They are called hurricanes in the Atlantic and the northeast Pacific, and Typhoons in the northwest Pacific, and otherwise just cyclones.
Satellite photo of hurricane approaching Cuba and Florida. Stock Photo ID: 2202605185 by Emre Akkoyun.
A tornado is a violently rotating column of air that is in contact with both the surface of the Earth and a cloud. They originate with thunderstorms, especially supercells, and are more of an inland phenomenon even though hurricanes can sometimes generate tornadoes. Tornadoes are much smaller than hurricanes in area, almost always much smaller than a square mile, or just 10 or 30 meters across. The reason they can be as deadly as hurricanes is that they tend to have stronger winds and they appear and disappear quicker thus taking people by surprise.
A so called supercell but without a tornado. Stock Photo ID: 1768468151 by Laura Hedien.An F5 tornado in Canada. From Wikimedia Commons.
So, in summary, Hurricanes cover a large area and lasts a long time. They come from the sea and devastate coastal areas and are less common than tornadoes. Tornadoes are formed on land from thunderstorms, typically supercells. They are particularly common in tornado-alley. They cover a small area and go high up into the air forming a funnel and are commonly more intense. They are also more common, and they can surprise people. Therefore, on average, tornadoes cause more deaths in the US than hurricanes. You can read more about it here.
Our Tornado Experience
As mentioned, on October 20, 2025, our neighborhood was ravaged by an EF3 tornado. I was sitting outside in the backyard drinking a beer (Yellow Rose from Lone Pint brewery) when the sirens went off and my cell phone started screaming tornado warning “seek shelter immediately”. I did not see any problem, so I thought it was just one of unnecessary warnings again and I wanted to finish my beer. However, I decided to walk back into the house. About one minute later there was a lot of noise and a piece of the neighbor’s roof flew into our chimney, smashed it and it started raining bricks.
The house shook and thought to myself, “that was some thunderstorm”. I opened the door to the backyard, and I was astounded when I saw the devastation. My backyard was covered in debris, bricks, trees, garbage, my grill had flown off, several of our neighbors’ houses were just rubble. I guessed it must have been a tornado. My wife Claudia told me to go and check on her parents who lived about a mile away. I started driving my Toyota Prius, but I did not get very far because a neighbor’s roof was lying across the road. We live on a circle, so I decided to go the other way instead but about 30 trees lying across the road stopped me. So, I started walking but four firemen stopped me and told me that it was too dangerous to walk around. I had to go home. We would later learn that my wife’s father was injured. I am describing this in the NBC interview below.
We lost power for four days, we needed a new roof and a new chimney, the wiring and piping (for air conditioning) in the attic was destroyed, the fence and garage door were broken. It cost $50,000.00 to repair, nut our house stood, the frame was fine, and luckily our insurance paid for all of it, except for the parasol the flew away. We had no proof it ever existed. Not everyone was that lucky, especially those whose houses were destroyed. Unfortunately, our Leonberger dog Bronco had a heart failure one week after this. However, he recovered. But we are guessing that the fact that we did not have air conditioning for a while could have affected his heart. It was a tough day for Bronco, our Leonberger Dog. <<Link-13>>
A neighbor’s house the morning of October 21st, 2019.Another neighbor’s house. This house was about 100 yards from our house. It took a direct hit from the tornado.Another neighbor’s house (a bit further away from us).Inside Claudia’s parents’ house. This was the morning after. We are walking into their house to check on them (that’s my wife).This is the next-door neighbor of Claudia’s (my wife) parents.Destroyed house in the neighborhood.Another house in the neighborhood.The remains of the veterinary clinic where we used to take our dogs. Luckily there were no animals staying overnight at this time.View of the shopping center in our neighborhood.A store at a nearby shopping centerThis was a school bus belonging to the school where my boys went.Streetview from the neighborhood.
My Interview with NBC
As I mentioned, last year NBC interviewed me about this event. They said that they had been reading my Leonberger blog and were interested in a post that I had made about the tornado in Dallas on October 20, 2019. They wanted to interview me and asked for permission to use a few of my photos.
Seeing myself on the TV was a bit surreal. Click on the image to see the interview. My interview starts at 1 minute and 11 seconds.Here I am with NBC journalist Katie Blake. Click on the image or here to see the interview. My interview starts at 1 minute and 11 seconds.
I would like to stress that there are thousands of people whom they could have interviewed. Thousands of people who probably would have been better candidates. What made all the difference was the post I made on my blog. Therefore, fellow bloggers, perhaps this is an example of the fact that blogs bring attention.
Super fact 63 : Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that life has changed over time. This is supported by overwhelming evidence, while the theory of evolution provides a comprehensive scientific explanation for these changes, using processes like natural selection.
This is very confusing to people who do not know what a scientific fact is or what a scientific theory is. First of all, a scientific fact (they exist) is not the same as the scientific theory associated with that fact. Secondly, theory in science does not mean a guess, or a hypothesis, as is often the case in common parlance. In science, a theory is far more than a guess — it is a well-tested, comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena, supported by an extensive body of evidence. I think a good example of this confusion is the following dialogue that I found on Facebook.
I follow “The Credible Hulk”, a Facebook page managed by a group of anonymous scientists dedicated to correcting misinformation around vaccines, global warming, evolution and GMOs. I did not save the post, but it went something like this: The Credible Hulk posted a meme that looked like this.
One of the commentors said : “Calling evolution a “fact” defeats your argument. The Theory of Evolution is by definition a theory not a fact. It’s the currently agreed upon hypothesis but not a fact.” He did not know that he did not know what he was talking about. Since the Credible Hulk page is administered by scientists and a lot of its followers are also scientists, or people with a science education, he got schooled. You can read more about this confusion in my post “There Are Scientific Facts”, or here.
The evidence for evolution is both vast and compelling. Evolution is not just a process of the distant past — it can be observed in real time. Bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, viruses adapting to immune systems, and insects evolving resistance to pesticides are clear, measurable examples of evolution in action. The extensive fossil record, transitional fossils, comparative anatomy, sub-optimality, evidence from biogeography, etc., provide a very large body of conclusive evidence for evolution. Modern genetics provides perhaps the strongest proof of evolution.
Far from being a matter of belief, evolution is a scientifically established reality that shapes life continuously. Its understanding is vital, not only for biology but also for medicine, ecology, and environmental science. It allows us to track disease outbreaks, design new treatments, and appreciate the delicate balance of ecosystems. Evolution is not speculation — it is the foundation of modern biology and a dynamic process still unfolding around us. Evolution is a fact.
According to the pew research center around a third of all Americans reject the idea of evolution. Since this is an important fact that is widely disputed amongst the public, and yet we know it is true, I consider it a super fact. I also would like to reiterate that none of my super facts are scientific theories, but some of them are scientific facts, which again, is not the same thing.
Evidence for Evolution
The evidence for evolution as a phenomenon (fact) is conclusive as we can directly observe it (see below). That is all I need for my statement above that evolution is a fact. However, most people want to know how strong the evidence is for large-scale evolutionary changes that have occurred over geologic time, and what evidence there is for evolution being as the origin of species. In other words, how strong is the evidence for the theory of evolution. It turns out the evidence for that is also very strong. That is not the same as my super fact, but it is related and a quite interesting discussion.
Fossil records preserved in rock layers reveal a chronological history of life on Earth, documenting gradual changes in species over millions of years. Transitional fossils, such as Archaeopteryx linking dinosaurs to birds, demonstrate how one group of organisms evolved into another. Comparative anatomy adds to the case, showing homologous structures across species that point to shared ancestry.
Biogeography shows patterns of species distribution explained by common descent and migration. Modern genetics provides perhaps the strongest proof. DNA — the universal code of life — shows striking similarities across organisms. Humans, for example, share a large percentage of their genome with chimpanzees, and remarkably, the same genetic code underlies all living things, from bacteria to mammals, confirming a common evolutionary origin.
Making a list of all the evidence with brief explanations is far beyond the scope of this blog post and reading a 1,000,000+ word essay about evidence is not everyone’s cup of tea. Therefore, I am just providing a very small sample with very brief explanations (this post is long enough as it is).
This website offers a more extensive overview including 29+ evidences for so called macroevolution. Macroevolution describes large-scale evolutionary changes that occur over geologic time. Scientist tend to avoid the word Macroevolution because it is so misunderstood. First of all, Macroevolution is just the combination of a large number of smaller scale changes. New species do not randomly pop up because of some amazing mutation.
Speciation is considered relative. It is often said that two animals belong to the same species if they can interbreed in nature and produce viable, fertile offspring. However, it is not that simple. An animal A may be able to successfully interbreed with an animal B, and that animal B may be able to successfully interbreed with an animal C, but animal A and C cannot interbreed. Animal A could be said to be a different species relative to animal C but animal B could be said to be the same species as both animal A & C.
A great geography related example of this is ring species. In a ring species, gene flow occurs between neighboring populations of a species, but at the ends of the ring the populations don’t interbreed. Macroevolution is the result of repeated microevolution, so you cannot claim that microevolution is possible but not macroevolution.
Illustration of ring species, an example of how speciation can be relative. All the circles next to each other can interbreed but at the end it no longer works. Andrew Z. Colvin, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Direct Observation
Evolution in viruses and bacteria has been observed and is well-documented, providing a direct window into evolutionary processes. Examples include the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the annual evolution of influenza viruses and researchers can also directly observe rapid adaptation through experiments, such as the ongoing “arms race” between bacteria and viruses in lab settings. Direct observation supports my claim that “evolution is a fact”, because we’ve seen it. However, the evidence for so called macroevolution over longer periods of time is more indirect but still extremely strong.
Evidence from Biogeography
Biogeography provides evolutionary evidence by revealing patterns in the geographic distribution of species that can only be explained by common descent and evolutionary processes. For example, oceanic islands, which are islands that are formed from the sea bottom typically through volcanic activity, feature very narrow sets of native species (flora + fauna) that do not exist elsewhere.
One example is the Hawaiian Islands, which make up only 0.004 percent of the earth’s land and yet they contain nearly half of the world’s two thousand species of Drosophila. Darwin’s finches is another example. Another example is that oceanic islands do not have any native freshwater fish, or amphibians and rarely any native reptiles or mammals. These kinds of examples match the narrative that certain species (birds, insects, etc.) travelled to these islands and then evolved resulting in a unique set of species. BTW non-native freshwater fish, amphibians, and mammals do just fine, so it is not the environment. The book Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne gives an extensive overview of biogeographic evidence for evolution.
Fossil Record
There are millions of found fossils representing 250,000 different species (there are likely trillions of not yet found fossils). The fossil record shows that early life was simple with complex life appearing later, with the youngest fossils being most similar to currently living species. It documents the orderly succession of life forms through geologic time. This is predicted by the theory of evolution. In addition, the various so called gaps in the fossil record keep being filled out. Opponents to evolution often criticize the dating methods used to date fossils. However, these criticisms do not hold water. You can read about that in my post We Know That the Earth is Billions of Years Old.
The fossil record is a lot more solid and much less problematic than the creationist books I have read claimed. Shutter Stock Photo ID: 1323000239 by Alizada Studios
Evidence of Evolution from DNA
DNA provides strong evidence for evolution. It is perhaps the strongest evidence for evolution. For example, related species share genes for fundamental traits, and the more similar the DNA sequences of two organisms, the more recently they shared a common ancestor. As time goes by DNA mutations accumulate acting like a “genetic clock,” allowing scientists to estimate how long ago different lineages split from each other. That’s how we know that Chimpanzees and Hominins / Humans share a common ancestor about 6-8 million years ago without having a fossil.
I can add that this was just a sample with a very brief summary for each case. Other types of evidence is the development of embryos. For example, whale and dolphin embryos have limbs that disappear, fetuses look like fish early on, human fetuses go through a hairy (primate) stage. There is evidence in the anatomy of our bodies, sub-optimality, curious anatomical imperfections due to our evolutionary history, so called atavisms, and vestiges. But that is enough for now.
Objections to Evolution
If you pay attention to this topic, you will come across a lot of flawed objections to evolution. When I was a teenager, I was a young earth creationist myself. Since I did not know a lot about the subject at the time I accepted many of these flawed objections and I even believed in a young earth. It doesn’t matter how many flawed objections you have to a theory (or a fact), if they are flawed, they don’t matter. I was very interested in science and went to science high school in northern Sweden. As I learned more about science, I came to realize that I had been bamboozled. You can read more about that in my post “Bamboozlement Misunderstandings, Big Surprises and My Journey”.
Since then, I have tried to argue with creationists about evolution, and I have come to realize that a lot of people are very emotionally invested in their opposition to evolution. For example, back in high school my wife was asked whether she believed in evolution and when she said yes, another girl threatened to beat her up in the bathroom. Once I was arguing online with a couple of strict fundamentalists who took a very aggressive and self-assured attitude to the topic despite not knowing much about the related science or evidence. It seemed to be impossible for them to understand normal scientific or logical arguments and yet they were totally sure, and they used mockery a lot. One of them found out that I “believed/accepted” that global warming is real and caused by us and started mocking me for that, a totally unrelated issue. Then the other one told me that if you believe in evolution, then you and your children will burn in hell forever. Well, if that is really what you believe, no wonder you can’t be rational about it. Anyway, at this point I pressed the block button. Talk about a hot discussion.
In my youth I read dozens of creationist books of various kinds, so I’ve have come across a lot of creationist objections. In the end I came to realize that none of them worked. I can add that the book “The Counter-Creationism Handbook” address over 400 of the most prevalent claims made by creationists. Below I am just very briefly addressing a few.
If humans descended from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?
This is perhaps one of the more simplistic objections, but it is still worth mentioning. Even if it would have been true that monkeys evolved from monkeys, there’s no reason monkeys would stop existing just because humans evolved from some monkeys. However, that is not what happened. Genetics provides overwhelming evidence that hominins (including humans) and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. We have not found a fossil for this ancestor, but human and chimpanzee DNA tells us that such an ancestor lived about 6 to 8 million years ago. The simplified cladogram for hominins below demonstrates this. I can add that there are around 6000 hominin fossils, and up to 31 hominin species.
Simple cladogram showing evolution of modern man from Hominid Ancestor Shutterstock Asset id: 2093535535 by CLOUD-WALKER
Evolution is not Falsifiable
A theory is scientific only if it can be proven false. It must be falsifiable. Opponents to evolution often claim that evolution is not falsifiable because it deals with unobservable, unrepeatable events. However, the theory of evolution is falsifiable. There are no Precambrian rabbits or Mesozoic human fossils, but if there were that would have proven the theory of evolution false. Note evolution would still have been directly observable (viruses and bacteria), so evolution is a fact that would still be true, but the theory of evolution would have been proven wrong.
Second law of Thermodynamics contradicts Evolution
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (typically denoted ‘S’ in physics), which could be said to represent disorder, always increases or stays the same in a closed system. Creationists believe evolution creates complexity and order, which would seem to be a decrease in entropy. One weakness of this argument is that entropy representing disorder only loosely relates to order and disorder as used in common language. More correctly, entropy is defined as; for a given set of macroscopic variables, the entropy measures the degree to which the probability of the system is spread out over different possible microstates. Much more importantly, the creationist argument fails because the second law of thermodynamics requires a closed system, and evolution does not operate in a closed system. For example, the sun is shining and providing earth with energy.
Second law of thermodynamics Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2342031619 by Sasha701
Evolution is Random and Improbable
Another creationist argument is that evolution is random, and randomness cannot create an elephant or an airplane. No matter how many times you randomly throw pieces of junk around you won’t get an airplane. The error in this argument is that evolution is not random. It is guided by natural selection (theory of evolution), and natural selection can be very powerful over time. For example, several computer simulations have been created to model the evolution of the eye, demonstrating that a complex camera-type eye can evolve gradually from a simple light-sensitive patch through a series of small, advantageous steps.
I can add that I have some personal experience with genetic algorithms myself. At work I created an algorithm that interpreted data from a camera for the purpose of sorting mail effectively. I started out with a chromosome that was very bad. Then my program applied random mutations and few other genetic features and allowed the best chromosomes to survive. Eventually a very complex but effective algorithm/chromosome resulted. I did not create this powerful algorithm; randomness combined with natural selection did. Randomly throw lots of junk around but also add some natural selection and you may very well get an airplane.
Microevolution is possible but not Macroevolution
Creationists like to say this because they must accept the reality of observable microevolution. It is a scientific fact. However, so called macroevolution is just repeated microevolution. There is no reason that macroevolution wouldn’t be possible. In addition, as you saw in the paragraphs before the ring species image above, the evidence for macroevolution is very strong. Again, microevolution and macroevolution are concepts that creationists like to use more than scientists.
Anyway, this became very long, almost 3,000 words.
Super fact 61 : An overwhelming body of scientific evidence has proven that vaccines do not cause autism. In addition, research shows that Tylenol (acetaminophen) is not a likely cause of autism.
Autism is a complex disorder caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. It is estimated that approximately 80-90% of the risk for autism is genetic. There are other factors that also increase the risk for autism such as advanced parental age, birth complications, and prenatal exposure to certain chemicals or infections. However, despite what many people believe, or have heard, vaccines (and Tylenol) is not one of them.
No dog has ever gotten autism from a vaccine. The same is true for humans. Well, dogs don’t get autism in the first place. Shutterstock Asset id: 1676509894 by Vince Scherer
The belief that vaccines cause autism originated primarily from a single, fraudulent 1998 study published by Andrew Wakefield. The study falsely claimed a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in 12 children. Since then, dozens of high-quality scientific studies, involving millions of children across multiple countries, have found no link between vaccines and autism. One Danish study involved 657,000 children. Leading global health organizations such as CDC, WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics AAP, have affirmed this conclusion. You can read more about it here, and here, and here. In general, routine vaccines has been shown to be safe.
Some studies have shown minor associations between acetaminophen and autism, but association, or correlation, is not causality. Tylenol is often used more often in challenging pregnancies. Research shows no causal link between Tylenol and autism. This is what Nature, a prestigious, leading weekly scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed research papers, says. You can read more here, here, and here.
If you focus on the medical research and what reputable medical associations say as opposed to social media memes, talk show hosts, and politicians say, it is obvious that this super fact is true. It is obviously important and yet a lot of people refuse to accept it, including a lot of people I personally know. That makes it a super fact. It is a true and important fact that is surprising or hard to accept for many people.
I try to avoid politics as much as possible in this blog but perhaps this post may seem political to some, but it really isn’t. It’s the government agencies, politicians, political think tanks and individuals who reject scientific evidence that does not support their agendas who are being overly political. Just presenting the facts does not make you political. Just like thermometers don’t have political parties (global warming) neither do statistical tools, DNA or viruses.
What about the Autism Epidemic?
It is true that autism diagnoses have increased by about 300% over the last 20 years. There are two main reasons for this increase. First, the definition of autism spectrum disorder has been broadened. Second, public health programs have increased screening that look for signs of autism at wellness visits for children ages 18–24 months. There is also an increased awareness about autism among parents and in society. The subgroup consisting of severe cases of autism has increased very little if at all. You can read more about that here.
However, it should also be noted that in addition to genetics, which is the major cause, certain factors such as higher parental age, air pollution, infections during pregnancy, obesity, diabetes, immune system disorders, low birthrate, extreme prematurity, are associated with an increased risk. Some of these factors have gotten worse. What is not the cause is vaccines. You can read more about that here, here, here, and here.
Related Super Facts
One of my super facts posts that is related to this post is:
Child with smallpox in Bangladesh 1975. Wikimedia commons photo by CDC/James Hicks.
There are also super facts that may not be directly related to this post but that share one particular feature with this super fact, and that is that they are frequent targets of denial, derision, mockery, and misrepresentation by some (or many) of our political leaders.
Super fact 59 : Most people have heard of electrical charges, positive and negative. However, in nature there are also color charges—red, green, and blue—which are analogous to electric charges. In addition, there are anti-red, anti-green, and anti-blue charges.
As you may know, atoms consist of particles. Electrons surround the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus of the atom is in the middle of the atom and it consists of protons and neutrons. Electrons have a negative charge. Protons have a positive charge. Neutrons do not have an electrical charge. Electrons are so called elementary particles. They are not composed of other particles. Protons and Neutrons, on the other hand, are not elementary particles. They are composite particles consisting of quarks, gluons and quark pairs called mesons.
Four elements with a nucleus and electron shells. The number of electrons, protons, and neutrons is shown. The green particles circling the nucleus are electrons. The red particles in the nucleus (middle) are protons and the blue particles in the nucleus are neutrons. The colors of the particles in this picture have nothing to do with color charges. The four elements are Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. There are 118 elements. These elements can combine into millions of different kinds of molecules that make up everything. Asset id: 1555863596 by OSweetNature.
Quarks have electric charges, just like an electron and a positron, which is why a proton has an electric charge, a positive electric charge. However, in addition quarks have something called color charge. Unlike electric charges, which come in two forms, negative and positive, they come in three forms red, green and blue and in anti-red, anti-green, and anti-blue (well six forms actually). I should say that the color charges, red, green and blue, are not real colors. They are just names. Just electric charges are associated with electric forces; color charges are associated with the nuclear strong force. The strong force is even stronger than the electrical force.
If you take an equal amount of positive and negative electric charges you get something that is electrically neutral. If you take an equal amount of red, green and blue you get what is called white, or neutral. If you take an equal amount of red and anti-red you also get white. Any other mix gives you a net color charge.
The proton and neutron each consist of three quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark. Neutrons consist of two down quarks and one up quark. Both protons and neutrons have a net white charge. The yellow squiggly lines are gluons transporting color charge between the quarks. Asset id: 2333679305 by KRPD.
I can add that gluons are elementary particles that in many respects are like photons. Light consists of photons. It is because of the photons that we can see. In addition, the photons transport electrical charge. Photons are massless elementary particles with the intrinsic spin of one, and they belong to a group of elementary particles called Bosons. Gluons transport color charge, and they are massless and have an intrinsic spin of one and belong to the same group of elementary particles called Bosons. Unlike photons, they are stuck inside the nucleus and unlike photons they never get to see the light of day. The pun was intended.
Matter, light, and electrical charges are all part of our daily life. We can touch matter, see light, and we come across electrical charge when we touch something that is charged or when we see lightning. However, we do not come across quarks, gluons, and color charges in our daily life because they are hidden at the center of the atoms. Yet they are fundamental to the existence of matter, of us. We know color charges exist, the existence of color charges is an important fact, and yet it is not a well-known fact and often a big surprise to people. Therefore, I think it is a super fact.
The 118 Elements and the 3,500 Isotopes
There are 118 known elements. Why not 500, or just 4 or 5, like the ancient Greeks believed? Each element is defined by it having a certain number of protons and the same number of electrons if it is to be electrically neutral. The problem with having more than one proton in the nucleus is that protons all carry a positive charge and therefore want to push each other away. Same charges repel and different charges attract. What saves the nucleus from blowing apart are the neutrons and the associated strong nuclear force (protons & neutrons) which is guided by the color charges. The quantum model for electricity is called Quantum electrodynamics or QED. The quantum model for color charges is called Quantum chromodynamics or QCD.
As you add more protons it becomes increasingly more difficult for the nuclear forces (strong and weak) to hold the nucleus together. The positive charge of the protons is pushing too hard. That’s why there are only 118 Elements. Another thing to note is that the number of neutrons does not have to be the same as the number of protons. This means that for each element there are several kinds of so-called isotopes. For example, carbon has six protons and six electrons (if the atom is electrically neutral) but the carbon atom / element can have six neutrons, seven neutrons, or eight neutrons. You call them carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14, where the number represents the number of protons plus the number of neutrons.
Three natural isotopes of Carbon Stock Vector ID: 2063998442 by zizou7This is a simplified Bohr model of the Uranium atom. There are 92 little blue balls circling a nucleus in the middle of the atom. Those are electrons. In the nucleus there are 92 protons. Those are the red balls with plus signs. In addition, there is a yellowish smudge around the protons in the nucleus. Those are the neutrons. Depending on the isotope, there are 143 neutrons for U-235, 146 neutrons for U-238 and 142 neutrons for U-234. Shutterstock asset id: 1999370450 by Patricia F. Carvalho
It is the electrons that determine the chemical properties of an element, and therefore isotopes with a different amount of neutrons are chemically identical. However, they are different with respect to properties that relate to he nucleus, such as radioactivity/stability, and of course weight. Also, when atoms combine into molecules their chemical properties change drastically, but again that is due to the rearrangement of the electrons. There are around 3,500 known isotopes, most of them radioactive.
What is a Quark?
To learn more about Protons, Neutrons, Quarks, Gluons, Color Charges, and Quantum Chromodynamics you can watch this 10 minute video below.
Super fact 58 : In relativity, time is considered the fourth dimension, inseparable from the three spatial dimensions to form a four-dimensional continuum called spacetime. Adding time as a fourth dimension, not (x, y, z), but (x, y, z, t), results in spacetime measurements called spacetime intervals that all observers can agree on.
Before relativity the distance between two points was the same for all observers. The distance between points is calculated using the Pythagorean theorem: (d^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}). You calculate the distance between two end points in a coordinate system using Pythagoras theorem because the points make right angled triangles along the x-axis, y-axis and z-axis. See the picture below.
Pythagoras theorem in two and three dimensions which also apply to the distance between two points. The points are indicated in red.
Let say you add another coordinate system (x’, y’, z’). The new coordinate system could be translated and rotated compared to the first one. The values of (x, y, z) and (x’, y’, z’) would be different and yet the distance between point-1 and point-2 would be the same. Well as long as you don’t change units, like using meters in one coordinate system and feet in the other. The distance between the points would be a so-called invariant. Now imagine that you forgot to include one coordinate in Pythagoras theorem, for example, y and y’ or x and x’, then your calculation for the distance would be different for the two coordinate systems. We need all coordinates, or all dimensions. See the picture below.
Pythagoras theorem is used to calculate the distance between two points from two different coordinate systems, with different coordinate values for the points. You still have the same distance for both coordinate systems. The points are indicated in red.
In relativity the length of objects, as well as the time between events is relative and varies from observer to observer. In other words, distance and time varies from coordinate system to coordinate system. However, if you add time to the three space dimensions and calculate the distance between events using the Pythagorean theorem for intervals (between two events): or (s^{2}= x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} – t^{2}) or (where the ‘t’ represents time in appropriate units), then the difference between different observers vanish. The interval is the same for all observers. It is a so-called invariant. The formula for the spacetime interval comes in a few different forms. One for distance like intervals (space distance bigger than time) (s^{2}= x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} – t^{2}), and one for time like intervals (time is bigger than the space distance) (s^{2}= t^{2} – (x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2})). There is also one that includes the imaginary number (s^{2}= x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2} + (it)^{2}). See below.
The three formulas for the spacetime interval above all assume that the unit used for time is the time it takes light in vacuum to travel the distance unit used. If that is meters, it would be the time it takes light to travel one meter. The top formula is the Euclidian form of spacetime. It contains only the ‘+’ operator at the expense of adding the imaginary number (square root of -1) in front of the time coordinate. The second form is typically used with time like intervals and considered the standard form. The third form is used when the distance between two events is larger than the time distance, or distance like intervals.
The interval concept was developed, not by Einstein, but by Hermann Minkowski (a few years after special relativity) and is often referred to as Minkowski space. Time is like a space coordinate but the opposite signs in the equation make it different. Based on articles I found it appears that the opposite signs (minus vs. plus) means that you cannot move “backwards” in time as you can in a space dimension.
I admit that this is a very abstract super fact, but it basically means that if you add time as an extra coordinate to the three space coordinates x, y, z you get something, the spacetime interval, that everyone regardless of speed, orientation, etc., agrees on, despite relativistic length contraction and despite time dilation and non-simultaneity.
Time Expressed in Appropriate Units
I would also like to explain what I mean by (where the ‘t’ represents time in appropriate units), as I stated in the above. For physical formulas to work they need to be expressed in consistent units. For example, you can’t use kilometers for the coordinate x, and miles for coordinate y, not without adding a constant to adjust for it. For the formula (s^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-t^{2}) to work you need to express time in a unit that corresponds the time light travels in one meter if x, y and z are expressed in meters. If you express x, y, and z in meters and express time in seconds you must adjust the formula with the constant c = 299,792,458, the speed of light in meters per second, so you get (s^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-(ct)^{2}). See the picture below.
If you measure the space coordinates in meters and the time in seconds you must adjust the units to match by inserting the speed of light in vacuum c = 299,792,458. The three forms of the space interval now have the constant c attached to the time coordinate.
Time Like Space Intervals
The formula for time like intervals is typically used for the situation where the time component is larger than the space component, which also means that it is possible to physically travel between the two events forming the space interval. As you can guess, that is a pretty normal situation. Let’s say you are watching TV and having a pizza. Your sofa is your coordinate system. You turn on the TV and 100 seconds later you move 2 meters to get a slice of pizza. Let’s calculate the spacetime distance between those two events.
The space component is easy, that’s 2 meters. However, if we express time in the time it takes light (in vacuum) to travel one meter we get 100 times 299,792,458. If you express time in seconds, you adjust it using the constant c = 299,792,458, and again you multiply 100 with 299,792,458, which is 29,979,245,800. So, the distance in time is almost 15 billion times larger. You really did not move far in space, but you moved very far in time. Now ask yourself. Are you spending your time well?
The Minus in Front of the Time Coordinate
There is one obvious difference between time and the space coordinates. In a coordinate system you can walk forward, along let’s say, the x-axis and then walk back the same way. You can walk back and forth as many times as you want, no problem, but you cannot do that with time. Time may be a space-time coordinate, but it is different from the other three coordinates in that way, and that’s where the opposite signs in the formula for the space-time interval comes in. This is beyond the scope of this super fact blog post, but you can read more about this here and here.
Super Facts 