I spent ten days in Norway this summer. What follows are reflections from my time there on Oslo, the Vikings, and WWII.

Oslo Vibes

“This place isn’t perfect Jordan,” a civil servant told me, “please tell me you won’t make that your angle.” I then asked him what the worst neighborhood in Oslo is, walked there, and felt it was nicer than half of Manhattan.

The first few days of 19 hours of sunlight in 72-degree weather were an unparalleled endorphin rush, but by day six I felt a little strung out.

Servicepeople regardless of your race start conversations in Norwegian so as to not make immigrants feel unwelcome.

I played some pickup sand volleyball in one of the thousand Oslo parks with a Kurdish culture affinity club. No-one on my team could tell me how to say “nice serve” in Kurdish but when some Kendrick came on their speakers, they all sang along to “certified Loverboy, certified pedophile.”

Chinese EV showrooms dotted Oslo, with Nio taking plum position on the main street right outside parliament. The salesman there said vibes are mostly good, though every few weeks someone walks in just to say “we don’t like Chinese cars here.” The XPENG 小鹏 saleswoman unprompted told me, “we are Chinese but a private company not owned by the government like BYD. Also, Volkswagen owns 5 percent and Norwegian oil fund owns some of us too.”

Norway up until the 70s was one of the biggest Israel supporters. Their two Labor parties both ran their countries for decades, and living on a kibbutz was a thing Norwegian lefties did. But Norwegian soldiers saw some shit as peacekeepers in Lebanon in the 80s, everyone got really invested in the Oslo Peace Process and felt burned by the Israelis in the subsequent decades. “We were a colonized country too, you know. First the Danes then the Swedes…”

Thanks presumably to oil wealth guilt, Norway might be the country most into ESG. The government in early June officially recognized Palestine but Parliament decisively voted down a push to make the Oil Fund divest from all companies with ties to Israel. They did recently sell $70m of Caterpillar stock…? The ratio of pride to Palestinian flags was maybe 5:1.

Haaretz recently ran a feature on rising antisemitism in Norway which convinced me I didn’t want to move there. For an illustrative excerpt on what happened when a group of Jews tried to join an International Women’s Day protest to raise awareness of Hamas. They got approval to join, and on parade day this happened:

The hostile reaction manifested almost immediately. Initially, the group was refused entry to the event and had to prove that they had the organizers' authorization to participate. "One of the organizers went on shouting and cursing, and then took one of our signs and threw it on the ground," Nilsen recalls. "After the police made sure he couldn't get close to us, more and more organizers told us that our message conflicted with the messages of the event.

"They looked at us with hatred and disgust and started to shout that we were Zionists and fascists. Then the crowd joined in with slogans and rhythmic chanting that we were already used to, like 'Murderers,' 'No to Zionists in our streets' and 'From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free.'"

They avoided getting into a direct confrontation, Nilsen relates, "and we instructed our group not to scatter and not to respond. But when the atmosphere heated up, some of the other demonstrators – Norwegian men and women of my age – approached the members of the group very closely and whispered into their ear things like 'child murderer' and skadedyr' ['parasites' in Norwegian].

"I've had anti-Israeli calls shouted at me in the past," Nilsen continues. "But this time it was very different. The hatred came from people I thought we shared basic values with. The feeling was that we were being canceled as human beings. We weren't women and men – we were the embodiment of evil."

Parks midday on a Monday were packed. There’s an abundance of minigolf. Workdays in winter start very early so people can get some sunlight outside the office in the afternoon.

Norwegian youth wear the most boring clothes I’ve ever seen in a city. The one signature that stood out were these rainbow-tinted athletic glasses. A few years ago, a comedian made a hit song about the top brand which features a yodel.

Norway had the highest ratio of American to local music I’ve ever seen in a Spotify Top 50. The vast majority of what modern Norwegian hip hop, pop, and indie I came across was flat.

At first I thought there was some adverse selection going on where the best artists try to make it in English, but an arts and culture newspaper editor told me that actually that the cool thing nowadays is to sing in the local language. The Swedes have figured this out…what gives, Norway?

The closest to okay top Norwegian act I came across was Karpe, a rap duo of a Hindu and Muslim second generation immigrants. Electronic music was much stronger. I quite liked this mix and was told they do jazz well too.

Vikings

After flipping through a handful of intro to Vikings books, Children of Ash and Elm stood out for its writing and breadth. It an excellent portrait of the Vikings which brought the terror as well as the humanity to the culture. For instance, I quite liked this discursion into Viking bread.

Some more good writing:

And this:

This list of sea-king names was amazing:

The sagas were also surprisingly accessible and make for great audio books. The Poetic Edda would be my bet for an entry point.

But let’s not forget, the Vikings were actually horrible. This account of a king’s burial by a travelling Arab diplomat in the 900s is one of the most terrifying primary sources I’ve ever come across.

Sexual violence trigger warning.

Modern Norwegian History

Aside from non-fiction on Vikings and Hitler in Norway, the only book-length title I came across telling the history of modern Norway was The Norwegian Exception: Norway’s Liberal Democracy since 1814. I found its thesis hysterical: it’s been incredibly lucky. Its neighbors Sweden, Denmark, and Russia never invaded. The touchiest moment came in 1905 with Sweden…I’m sorry but I can’t help at laughing at the nationalist chest-puffing in Scandanavia.

But ultimately, good call by Norway conceding on the great reindeer dispute of 1905.

Other lucky turns: Norway’s time under Nazi Germany was the easiest ride of any country that got conquered in WWII (good book the occupation here). The country should get some credit for not having a civil war, fumbling the bag when it comes to exploiting the boom in global trade in the late 19th century, successfully leveraging water power to industrialize in the early 20th, and of course making the most out of its oil riches.

Final fun fact: Norway of course had an influential Maoist party! A paper if you’re curious.

Maoist skiing, who’d have thought!

But by the 70s, they somehow they became the party of no fun.

WWII

Aside from Vikings, you also have a number of incredibly detailed but not particularly engaging books on Hitler’s invasion. Here’s the case for caring:

The most interesting bits I found were on the strategic level, where before Germany made its move the UK was also dancing around a pre-emptive invasion primarily to secure iron ore. At one point, France pitched the UK to come into the Winter War on the side of the Finns, doing the enormously idiotic move of putting them directly in conflict with the USSR.

Can’t pass on another opportunity to clown on Chamberlain.

Photos

Oslo is big on public art and every other statue was naked. City Hall had some particularly suggestive murals.

I loved this 1919 woodcut.

Soy sauce is marketed at something for pasta sauce. I tried it and appreciated the umami boost—though I think fish sauce works better.

美国南方老乡的善良在城市中不容易感受到。他们以纯朴的方式表达友善。Theroux来南方旅行写成书，最深印象之一是当地人总是拿出吃的给陌生人，怕他们饿着。有一年圣诞节，我开车去海边，陷进沙滩，一位老人开皮卡，把我的车拖出来，给他钱答谢，他不收。告别时，他说“圣诞快乐”，停顿一下，又说“节日快乐”。

老人讲了一辈子“圣诞快乐”，肯定习惯了，但一说出口，也许觉得我可能不过圣诞节，马上又说“节日快乐”。这种随处可感的善意和体贴令人异乡人感动，也感慨——想及一些中国来的基督教友对说“节日快乐”捶胸顿足，这可能就是文明程度差距吧。文明程度和学历高低实在不同，跟信什么教更没有关系。

年轻一些的时候，甚至人到中年，经常忽视生活中这些善意，甚至用恶意去看世界，以为是犀利或深刻。年龄会改变人。像得克萨斯演员Tom Lee Jones演绎的得克萨斯故事中说的一样：“Age will flatten a man”（No Country for Old Men）。大意是说，“年纪会磨去人的棱角”，尤其是恶意的棱角吧。觉得年纪大了些，变化之一就是，知道学习体会周围人和陌生人表现的善意和体贴，开始珍惜这些善意和体贴。以前不在意的一些事，现在觉得宝贵了。

曾经有位下属，UT Austin毕业，刚工作不久，家里没有钱，开一辆破旧的Camry。几年前，国内来了几位实习生，租住的地方离她住的公寓不远。周末，我请她把他们捎到我家来玩。

那天，她开着一辆半新的Lexus E350把他们拉过来。我说，你换车了，很漂亮啊。她说，没有，那是她妈妈的车，她觉得客人坐这车会舒适一点。她父母住在城市的另一端，一个说西班牙语的区，也不是有钱人家。这种普通人身上表现的善意和体贴是超越语言、文化的，让人感受到人间情意的珍贵。

更年轻一些的时候，不在意这些，错过了很多人生中宝贵的人和事。Age flattens a man。曾经有过的大大小小棱角，大部分都磨平了，反倒开始珍视年轻时错过的那些。从云端落到地上，更加珍惜人间温情。

Commerce released its much-anticipated chip export-control updates earlier this month. To discuss, I was joined by Dylan Patel of SemiAnalysis and Greg Allen from CSIS. We were not impressed.

Below is part two of our discussion. We get into:

• Dylan’s and Greg’s pitches to incoming Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

• Why America’s “scalpel approach” to chip controls backfired and what a “shotgun approach” could look like.

• How China’s focus on trailing-edge chips and power semiconductors creates vulnerabilities that current controls don’t address.

• How Trump’s team could use novel tariff strategies to turn China’s massive chip buildout into “ghost fabs”.

Click this link to listen to the show on your favorite podcast app.

And a job post! ChinaTalk is hiring for a dedicated China AI lab analyst. Chinese fluency and a technical background are required. Apply here!

Okay, Trump — Your Turn

Jordan Schneider: We have new regulations with significant gaps [discussed in depth in part 1 of our conversation], and a new president arriving in four weeks. What should Trump and his team do on chips? And what do you think they will do?

Greg Allen: Marco Rubio, our presumptive Secretary of State, has consistently criticized the Biden administration’s export-control packages as too lenient, citing numerous loopholes and oversights. While the Commerce Department leads on dual-use technology export controls, the State Department participates in the interagency decision process.

Rubio’s passion for addressing Chinese technology threats could make him an influential voice in this arena. Similarly, the incoming national security advisor, Mike Waltz, prioritizes Chinese technology competition. The Biden administration established this new approach to the Foreign Direct Product Rule — a tool now available to the US government. The Trump administration might wield this tool quite differently.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s revisit our strategic premises, particularly regarding allies and partners. Trump’s negotiation style with allies differs markedly. The irony would be if Trump confronts allies over minor issues like Mexican auto imports or Canadian timber while overlooking semiconductor manufacturing equipment — the EU’s primary export to China and Japan’s second-largest.

If Trump takes an aggressive, unilateral approach, allies might accept semiconductor restrictions while focusing on larger concerns like NATO’s stability or US troops in Okinawa. The impact on industry follows similar logic — these restrictions won’t collapse American, Dutch, or Japanese economies.

The crucial question becomes, “Do we abandon end-use controls for a nationwide approach?”

Should we implement straightforward restrictions on sub-300mm semiconductor equipment exports to China, eliminate servicing allowances, and replace 200-page rulebooks with five-page directives?

Greg Allen: The Trump administration initiated our modern semiconductor export control approach — from chip-level restrictions with ZTE to the Foreign Direct Product Rule affecting Huawei and TSMC, and equipment export controls involving Dutch EUV machine licensing. The question is whether they’ll follow this strategy to its logical conclusion.

No apology to China would dissuade their pursuit of domestic self-sufficiency and indigenization. They’re fully committed to this strategy regardless of any potential trade deals with Trump. The distinction lies between appearing tough and implementing effective policies.

Regarding countrywide export controls: they’ve proven unambiguously most effective among our policy iterations. The current 200-plus pages of regulations create enormous complexity for future negotiations. Simplicity benefits both companies and allies in understanding these policies. While I appreciate the nuanced logic behind these complex distinctions, countrywide controls offer valuable simplicity.

Dylan Patel: The real question is exactly what Greg said: “How tough will they be on China?” While they initiated these measures, they ultimately relented with ZTE. They didn’t follow through completely, allowing ZTE to survive and continue growing. The core question remains.

Banning 300-millimeter equipment seems like an extreme measure. Perhaps they’re just accelerating the tightening of restrictions. Most people presume they’ll take a tougher stance — they’ll certainly appear tougher, but the extent remains uncertain. If they were to ban all 300-millimeter equipment, it would completely halt the Chinese equipment industry, though such a drastic step seems unlikely.

Jordan Schneider: Different question. If you had half an hour with Howard Lutnick to pitch the right export control policy, what would your key points be?

Dylan Patel: First, don’t listen to tool company lobbyists — they’re motivated to maintain loopholes that allow them to continue selling for another year, worth over $5 billion to them.

Regarding tools being multipurpose: should we maintain the 14-nanometer logic threshold? Even above that, China has achieved significant indigenization in their military equipment, which the US lacks. Is that the right boundary? Moving it to 28 nanometers would eliminate many dual-purpose equipment issues. At 14 nanometers, some 20-nanometer equipment might work for 7-nanometer applications.

We must consider China’s breakthrough innovation capabilities. They’re developing interesting technologies beyond EUV. We could restrict these areas — for example, Zeiss lenses to China face minimal restrictions. Looking up the supply chain is crucial because even if China achieves breakthrough innovation in tools, they’d need to replicate entire companies like Zeiss and others across the industry.

Understanding the primary goal is essential. If it’s slowing China’s AI chip development to limit their economic and military projection power over the next decade, there’s much more to address beyond AI chips, though they remain the primary focus. The strategy should be tactful — ban subcomponents first, then tools at a lesser level, followed by chips at an even lesser level. This framework still needs refinement.

South Korea presents a crucial consideration, particularly regarding Samsung and SK hynix’s large Chinese facilities. We need their alliance while preventing IP transfer from their Chinese operations. Perhaps CHIPS Act 2.0 could provide significant support to Samsung and SK hynix in the US.

The diplomatic approach with South Korea requires more finesse than with the Netherlands. Dutch companies only make tools and rely heavily on US supply chains — while Korean manufacturers like CMS rank seventh globally in tool production. Their fabs lead in certain areas with significant Chinese capacity. We can’t simply impose blanket bans without considering the implications for Samsung.

Closing loopholes seems straightforward, but the strategic objectives and precise targets require careful consideration.

The current strategy resembles a jigsaw puzzle. Give a hundred-piece puzzle to an eight-year-old, and they’ll complete it. Remove one piece — they’ll still figure it out. Take away ten pieces — it becomes much harder. Remove fifty pieces — they can’t finish it. Remove all the edges — they’re completely stuck.

Right now, the strategy involves removing just a few puzzle pieces.

Greg Allen: And they’re doing it one at a time, giving China time to stockpile.

Jordan Schneider: Not to mention announcing it in Reuters six months before removing the puzzle piece — saying nothing of listening to Gina Raimondo’s phone calls. It’s all publicly available outside of paywalls.

Dylan Patel: This strategy is clearly failing. They remove a few puzzle pieces, but China responds by stockpiling equipment, accumulating HBM, buying subsystems, and dedicating significant engineering resources to solve each banned component.

Take high-aspect ratio etchers for 3D NAND: because the ban was telegraphed, they purchased substantial Lam Research equipment beforehand, including years of spare parts. They positioned new tools beside foreign equipment, analyzed the data from both, and now YMTC is close to developing domestic high aspect ratio etchers. The quality might not match Lam Research, but it’s progress. This happened because the 2022 restrictions for 3D NAND only removed one puzzle piece.

The key insight is that you need a shotgun approach, not a scalpel. If you precisely target one linchpin technology, they’ll solve it with their substantial engineering talent, capital, and industrial base. A shotgun approach increases both cost and time requirements — if you force them to simultaneously solve ten different technologies, splitting their engineering resources, they’ll advance more slowly and fall further behind in AI development.

Jordan Schneider: The irony here is fascinating:

• If you sell them the complete puzzle, they won’t learn to manufacture pieces — there’s no incentive.

• With a shotgun approach, they might decide it’s too challenging and redirect resources to other sectors like EV batteries.

• However, America’s current approach of leaving enough scaffolding actually creates the perfect industrial-policy scenario. Companies typically avoid researching existing technologies when ROI is low, but the Swiss-cheese nature of restrictions over the past two years keeps them in the game, pushing indigenization further than if the US had either implemented dramatic FDPR in 2022 or continued selling everything.

Greg Allen: Say you and your spouse are choosing where to build your house: you’ve selected the neighborhood, but are still debating which side of the street. The dumbest thing you could do is compromise and build your house in the middle of the street. You can make logically consistent arguments for selling almost everything or almost nothing to China. The illogical approach is telegraphing your intention to restrict China while leaving numerous loopholes that undermine the strategy’s effectiveness.

These policies emerge from political compromises, which can be problematic. However, the “sell everything” scenario wouldn’t have ended well either. We sold everything regarding solar manufacturing equipment, and China now dominates that industry. The same happened with electric vehicles. Chinese policy documents and industry patterns don’t support the hypothesis that unrestricted semiconductor sales would have yielded positive outcomes. At this point, we’re committed to the export control strategy — we need to implement it effectively.

Jordan Schneider: Let’s create an alternate history. Up until October 2022, we sold everything to China. Huawei controlled one-third of global market share while Apple struggled in China. Meanwhile, SMIC was approaching competition levels with Intel, TSMC, and Samsung...

Dylan Patel: In this alternate history, Huawei had unlimited purchasing power until the Trump administration implemented restrictions. Huawei became TSMC’s largest customer and dominated Apple in the Chinese phone market. They emerged as the world’s largest phone manufacturer — not quite as profitable as Apple, but they were getting there. They dominated global telecom equipment markets, only facing resistance in regions where we explicitly banned their equipment due to security concerns, despite their technical superiority.

When companies have unrestricted purchasing power, they overtake industries. Take SMIC, for instance. With unlimited access to resources, they achieved 7-nanometer technology independently. Even though they could access TSMC’s 7-nanometer technology since 2018, SMIC still developed their own capabilities and found a market for it.

Their capacity today would be significantly larger without restrictions. Consider NAURA before the October 7, 2022, restrictions. Why did they maintain hundreds of millions in revenue when Applied Materials and Lam Research could sell freely to China? Because China’s industrial policy focuses on replication and building domestic supply chains. In an unrestricted scenario, it’s like giving them the complete puzzle, which they then recreate independently. Now, we’re only withholding one piece, yet they’re still determined to complete the puzzle themselves.

‘We Must Decide’

Jordan Schneider: Final thoughts — what’s the “America First” argument for investing in domestic semiconductor industry while restricting China’s semiconductor development?

Dylan Patel: Making American chips great again requires more than just the current CHIPS Act. $50 billion barely scratches the surface — Intel alone spends $20 billion annually on R&D, plus additional capital expenditure. The current allocation represents less than one year of spending, with Intel receiving under $10 billion spread across multiple years.

The renewable energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act represents about the same cost as securing even 5% domestic market share in chips. The semiconductor industry, where we currently hold significant market share, requires proportionally less investment. Industrial policy must be implemented before we lose our competitive edge.

To maintain at least 20% market share in memory, advanced logic, and other sectors, we need to act now. The cost increases dramatically if we wait five years. Tariffs alone won’t relocate chip manufacturing since the focus should be on end systems and servers. Manufacturing servers should happen in places like Vietnam and Mexico.

We need industrial policy that encourages significant capacity development. Should TSMC allocate 15-20% of their leading-edge capacity here, or should we aim for 30-40%? This goal is achievable with modest additional investment relative to government spending. Companies like Samsung, SK hynix, STMicroelectronics, and Infineon should be manufacturing in the US.

The CHIPS Act focuses primarily on leading-edge technology. We need expanded funding for both leading-edge and trailing-edge technologies to counter China’s dominance in the latter. Between 2022 and 2025, China’s IGBT [insulated-gate bipolar transistor] capacity growth exceeds the world’s existing capacity. While their yields may initially be lower, they’re positioning to control 50% of global capacity in power semiconductors. This creates significant supply chain security concerns that require strategic industrial policy rather than blanket restrictions.

Greg Allen: My question regarding everything you said is that Donald Trump considers himself “tariff man” and loves tariffs. The current tariffs on Chinese semiconductors apply only at the chip level when shipped as standalone items. While it would be complex to apply tariffs to the component value of chips in finished goods, it’s not impossible.

I’ve been wondering if the Trump administration might say that they don’t want what Trump has called “corporate welfare” through the CHIPS Act. Instead of industrial policy through subsidies, they may prefer industrial policy through tariffs. The current tariffs on Chinese semiconductors aren’t effective, but a different approach to tariffs might work. Though I’m not certain this is what they’ll pursue, it seems consistent with their messaging.

Dylan Patel: The question is, “Are you going to tariff electronic systems manufactured in China? Are you going to tariff 90% of iPhones?”

Greg Allen: We’re entirely speculating here, but I think they would say if an iPhone contains Chinese chips, the tariff applies based on the value of those Chinese chips. We’re always tariffing chips, whether they arrive in a box labeled “chips” or in telecommunications equipment.

Dylan Patel: Presumably it would be tiered — Chinese chips at a 500% tariff and Taiwan chips at a 10% tariff.

Greg Allen: Exactly. All this Chinese legacy buildout we’ve discussed — some of which might be advanced node production disguised as legacy node — could become the industrial equivalent of those ghost apartment buildings in China. If there’s no end market for these Chinese semiconductors, their industrial policy would be a disaster. They would have built a bridge of subsidies to nowhere. While I haven’t heard from Howard Lutnick or others in the Trump administration that this is their planned policy, I could see this approach being attractive.

Dylan Patel: But if you want to prevent China from gaining global market share in trailing chips outside of China, the primary task is moving electronic manufacturing out of China. The US market share for most products — excluding high-end AI servers — is only about 30% to 40%. For AI servers, it’s around 70%. We can dictate policy on AI servers, assuming we resolve the data center shortage, which requires significant regulatory changes.

Greg Allen: You’d have to persuade Europe and Japan to participate.

Dylan Patel: Exactly. Otherwise, why wouldn’t Xiaomi phones — which hold 20% global market share — and other Chinese phone makers like OPPO simply use Chinese RF chips, power management ICs, and antennas? They clearly will, unless we can move both manufacturing and vendors out of China.

Consumer goods, especially phones, are dominated by China. For laptops, you’d need to convince Dell and HP — through their ODMs [original design manufactures] like Compal — to completely relocate to southeast Asia, India, or elsewhere. A tariff on chip value made in China doesn’t solve this issue.

Since we’re speculating about the Trump administration’s approach, why not be more heavy-handed? We could tariff everything shipped from China, with lesser tariffs on Taiwan and southeast Asia. This would make moving out of China a massive cost saver — perhaps not enough to justify Mexico, but definitely southeast Asia.

Greg Allen: We’re at a point in the story where the Biden administration has assessed the policy toolbox created by the first Trump administration. Now we’ll see how a second Trump administration utilizes the toolbox Biden’s team has created. While some people in DC — certainly not me — may be tired of the semiconductor and AI great power competition narrative, I don’t think it’s going anywhere. This will remain a significant part of geopolitical competition and a key focus for the Trump administration.

Jordan Schneider: I got one more riff.

The intellectual- and execution-level challenges the Biden administration encountered with export controls exemplify broader Democratic Party challenges. There’s a tendency to believe they can devise the perfect algorithm that balances all competing interests. They think with solving enough integrals, extensive legal review, and track changes on docs, they’ll reach the optimal solution.

This pattern emerged with the Inflation Reduction Act’s lengthy development, the CHIPS Act’s extended negotiations, the periodic reassessment of Ukraine arms distribution, and these export controls. The problem is that, if you can’t make tough strategic decisions upfront and execute them — accepting that not everyone will be happy — you end up in limbo. You achieve worse results by trying to moderately satisfy five variables instead of maximizing the two most critical ones.

Greg Allen: Another way to put it: faster and good enough is almost always better than slower and theoretically perfect.

Jordan Schneider: As a new American dad returning from paternity leave, I’ve been exercising by birthright by reading Civil War history. There’s an excellent quote from Colonel James Rusling’s memoir about how Grant made decisions.

The irony is that October 2022 really felt like a decision point. Jake Sullivan gave a dramatic speech stating we needed to stay as far ahead of China as possible in critical strategic emerging technologies. A month later, ChatGPT emerged, clearly demonstrating AI as the critical emerging strategic technology. They were onto something, but now we’re left with this muddle.

Part 1 of our conversation:

Mood music:

本文写于中国几乎每天一条当街杀人新闻的那几天，也是在那几天过后我卸载了仅剩的常用简中公共社交媒体（微博好早之前就被炸了，微信很早之前就关闭了朋友圈的界面，抖音更是从来没用过），开始了物理学和数学的学习，也继续着之前的语言，社会学，心理学，经济学（包括投资理财的学习）。在我们元旦即将更新的播客《活在历史的垃圾时间，我们如何度过时代的乱纪元》里有我为什么要学习这些和学到了么更全面的介绍。我还准备几个月后把最近的学习成果做一期播客和大家分享。接下来是我在今年11月的某一天，因为学了物理学，产生了一个aha moment，继而在我每天写作15分钟的页面，写下的文章，希望它也能陪你度过可能得垃圾时间，为你带来一些aha瞬间！

今天我看了一个视频是物理学家费曼用浅显易懂的方式讲解我们日常生活中的物理现象，看了一会就觉得脑子澎湃运动，热起来了！

而这个反应刚好也是我看的视频核心学到的一点：物体内部原子或者分子越剧烈运动，物体就会温度越高。同样温度越高，原子或者分子这些运动也会更剧烈。

其中有一个点给我的大脑粒子带来了加速运动：就是我一直以为树的树干和枝条，主要是靠土壤中的矿物质和水分而生长起来的。

今天看了视频才知道树的大部分来源于空气而非土壤！构成树干和枝条的最主体的部分是碳，而碳源于空气中的二氧化碳。它的形成方式是这样的：空气中的二氧化碳进入树木，其中的碳原子和氧原子分离，碳原子和水构成了树干，而氧原子被踢出去进入空气成为了氧气。

而当你烧树木时，树木中的碳被释放，回到了空气中，和氧气一起构成了二氧化碳。

这也是为什么焚毁树木森林，就会加剧碳排放，让空气中的二氧化碳增多。而多种植树木，空气中的二氧化碳就会减少。我以前知道这个结论，但是我并不知道为什么，或者从生物学的“光合作用”的角度，我大概能理解，植物可以通过呼吸来吸走碳，呼出氧气，但是我当时并不知道碳被截留下来，成为了树干最主要的构成部分。

现在知道了这个，就有一种“通了！”的感觉，原子不仅在空气和树之间运动，也在我的大脑内运动，多多运动，大脑才会发热通畅，大脑中的灯才会被点亮，才会有aha moment!

讲述完这一段，费曼说他要留一个问题，就是太阳为什么如此炙热？

我就沿着这个我刚学到原子运动的思路思考了下去：太阳能如此炙热，应该也是因为它内部的分子和原子在猛烈运动。

那太阳内部粒子为什么能猛烈运动呢？是不是因为内部的温度很高，或者引力或者压力巨大，所以一直牵引着粒子来运动。倘若是这样的，那又是什么带来了太阳内部如此高的温度和强的引力压力呢？

我去问了一下chatgpt，的确是因为太阳内部高温高压，而带来的粒子的剧烈运动。而这个内部的引力或者压力，则是因为太阳的质量巨大。质量越大，内部引力就越强，就会把所有的东西往中心挤压，形成巨大的压力，像一个“超级高压锅”，粒子运动也就越强烈。而强烈运动就会带来炙热的温度和热量。

质量越大，引力越大这个原理，也让我再一次理解了“万有引力”的公式（我可能高中浅浅理解过，但不是真理解，所以给忘了）。

我们上高中应该都学过一个词，叫做太阳的“核聚变”，我一直记得这个词，但是我现在完全不记得它是啥意思了，今天我想到太阳内部的剧烈的粒子运动时，又想到这个词，想说它会不会就是在描述太阳内部的粒子运动，结果一查果然如此。

太阳因为质量巨大，内部就有极大引力和压力，在这种极端的压力下，氢原子核能够克服电磁力的排斥，被狠狠“挤”在一起，发生核聚变，释放出巨大的能量。这个能量也就是我们和地球万物感受到的温度的来源。

由此我又想到，不会核武器就是模仿太阳的核聚变吧？然后就发现还真是！氢弹的确是在一定程度上模仿了太阳的核聚变原理。

然后我就在在这里感受到了人类的聪明和恐怖：不仅是“欲与天公试比高”，还直接模仿“天公”，太阳用自己的核聚变反应来给万物提供能量和温度，人类通过模仿太阳来自相残杀，杀死万物。

继而联想到最近层出不穷的新闻，我就感觉今时今日的中国也是一个“人造太阳”。（因为以下内容直白危险，设置了paywall，也可以在游荡者平台的莫不谷主页解锁阅读）

Read more