Showing posts with label cosmology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cosmology. Show all posts

Friday, July 18, 2014

The Great Moon Hoax, Dihydrogen Monoxide, and a Rambling Lemming


(From The Sun, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Lithograph of the "ruby amphitheater:" part of The Sun's coverage of Sir John Herschel's (alleged) observations of moon people. (August 28, 1835))

Sir John Herschel didn't actually observe bison, goats, unicorns, bipedal tail-less beavers and bat-winged people on the moon: but that's what folks reading The Sun saw in 1835. The Lemming isn't surprised that some of them believed the Great Moon Hoax.

Antoine Lavoisier, Joseph Louis Proust, and John Dalton had been laying the groundwork for atomic theory Georg Ohm was bringing the world closer to spin dryers and rolling blackouts; and János Bolyai and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky released non-Euclidean geometry on an unsuspecting world.

Folks who didn't know much about science or mathematics may have been ready to believe just about anything written about scientists. Don't laugh: 43 out of 50 folks signed a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide not all that long ago.

Then there's the story about the moon being made of green cheese, and that's not quite another topic.

Space Aliens and a Nearly-Blind Octopus


Humans still haven't learned whether or not they're alone in the universe, but those overclocked primates are getting closer to an answer every year.

Guesses, educated and otherwise, keep popping up about why humans haven't found their neighbors, and what they'd look like: the space aliens, that is. Humans know what they look like: or should.

That critter isn't from another planet, by the way. It's a drawing of Cirrothauma murrayi, a sort of finned octopus.

Another name for Cirrothauma et cetera is The blind cirrate. That's cirrate, not curate: they're not British, you know. They really are blind, or nearly so: the octopuses, not British curates.

The octopuses — or is it octopi? — don't have much of a retina, and their eyes aren't equipped with lenses. A chap named Chun, Carl Chun, described the species in 1911.

Some humans say that they have so been visited by space aliens: lots of times. Maybe so, but the Lemming wonders if anybody could get bored enough to bother the natives with such remarkable regularity.

On the other hand, assigned to some back-side-of-nowhere maintenance station for an extended tour of duty? Maybe borrowing a short-range vehicle and buzzing cars - - - and that's definitely another topic.

Somewhat-related posts:

Friday, March 28, 2014

Coffee Cup, Doughnut: the Lemming's Back



The Lemming's joke about a topologist and a doughnut fell flat.

As you can plainly see, the Lemming's back.

Allegedly-related posts:

Friday, April 20, 2012

Time, the Universe, and Space Aliens

Friday is when the Lemming writes a post about 'whatever.' This time, the topic is space aliens, the universe, and all that. Not to be confused with the book with a different title.

Before getting started on opinion polls, assumptions, and Elvis, the Lemming had better make one thing very clear. In the Lemming's considered opinion, space aliens exist; or, they don't.

The Lemming also thinks that, at this point, either possibility might be true. Either way, "it's a sobering thought."

Do You Believe in Space Aliens?

Never mind space aliens for the moment. Let's look at what "believe in" can mean.

Do you "believe in" Poughkeepsie, New York? If you believe that the county seat of Dutchess County is real: you 'believe in' Poughkeepsie. In a way.

The Lemming believes that Poughkeepsie exists: mostly because there's a great deal of evidence supporting the idea that the city of 32,000 or so is real.

That's not the sort of 'belief' that most folks mean when they say that they 'believe in' space aliens.

Back when sightings of space aliens and Elvis were staple fare in American tabloids, quite a few folks 'believed in' space aliens.' And many folks may have been sincerely convinced that they saw Elvis.

What About Atlantis?

But sincerity isn't the same as evidence. Apart from fuzzy photos and blurred video, there's precious little evidence that people from another planet have been on Earth. It'd be easier, in the Lemming's opinion, to build a plausible case for the existence of Atlantis.

Does the Lemming 'believe in' Atlantis?

Yes: Plato's story might be 'based on actual events,' the way Coleridge's Xanadu is based on Kublai Khan's summer capital.

No: Plato's story might be a roaring great story that's echoed down the ages, and no more real than a history of Coruscant.

The key phrase in both opinions is "might be." The difference is how much plausibility the Lemming demands.

For what it's worth, the Lemming thinks that Plato's story might be a creative retelling of what folks remembered from the 'real' Atlantis.

It's possible that Plato's Atlantis is a (very) fictionalized version of something that happened during the Bronze Age. Θήρα, or Santorini, is a cluster of islands now. About three dozen centuries back, give or take, it was one, larger, island.

Then it exploded.

That was a very bad day for folks living in the area, and might be why the Minoan civilization went out of business so abruptly. Maybe - just maybe - that's what inspired Plato to write about "earthquakes and floods, and one grievous day and night" that destroyed a great civilization.

Or, not.

Space Aliens and the 2012 Election

Here's what got the Lemming thinking about space aliens:

"Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith"
Bill Keller, Magazine, The New York Times (August 25, 2011)

"If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand; one out of three Americans believe we have had Visitors and, hey, who knows? But I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan?..."
That "one out of three" link takes you to an interesting article:

"Poll probes Americans' belief in UFOs, life on other planets"
scrippsnews.com (July 15, 2008)

"Most Americans say it is very likely or somewhat likely that humans are not alone in the universe and that intelligent life exists on other planets.

"Only a third of adults, however, believe it's either very likely or somewhat likely that intelligent aliens from space have visited our planet, according to a survey of 1,003 adults conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University. ..."

Depending on how the poll questions were worded, the Lemming might be in the "third of adults" that thinks it's "very likely or somewhat likely" that someone from another planet has landed on Earth. But that doesn't mean that the Lemming thinks space aliens have been mutilating cattle, buzzing cars, and performing interstellar pregnancy tests in wholesale lots over the last half-century.

Space Aliens and the Universe

The Lemming doesn't know whether or not there's life anywhere in this universe, except for what's on Earth. But the Lemming does know that cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers have good reason to estimate the age of the universe at about 13,730,000,000 years: and that Earth has been around for roughly 4,000,000,000 years.

That's a lot of zeroes.

The Lemming relates a little better to pictures, maybe you do too. On the timeline below this paragraph, a pixel in the left column represents 10,000,000 years; a pixel in the right column represents 1,000,000 years.



That's a lot of time. Then there's the physical scale of the universe. There are about 300,000,000,000 stars just in this galaxy, give or take a hundred billion: and a whole lot more galaxies besides this one.

All that space and time is part of why the Lemming thinks humanity may 'not be alone.'

Then again, maybe Earth is the only place in all the universe that harbors life.

A Million Years? Blink, and You'll Miss It

Over the last 1,000,000 years, humans have gone from scorching fingers on campfires to plugging leaks in reactors. That's 1/13,030 of the age of the universe, and 1/4,000 the age of Earth.

A million years on that timeline is half the thickness of the gray line at the top on the right side; 1/20th the thickness of the gray line on the left side.

'A long time' depends on your perspective. Waiting for a red light to turn green, a minute is a long time for the Lemming. Compared to the age of the universe, a million years is in the 'blink and you'll miss it' category.

'What If'

If there is life somewhere else in the universe, if it's 'close on a cosmic scale, and if that life includes someone with the sort of itchy curiosity some of us have - - - That's a lot of "ifs."

Adding two more: if those folks got started just a little sooner than we did, say 1/13,030th of the age of the universe; and if they'd decided to go to other worlds; they'd have been traveling in space for 1,000,000 years.

Remember the scale of the universe, though. Folks who got a 1,000,000 year head start on humanity would still be 'roughly contemporary' on a cosmic timescale.

From Theoretical Physics to Working Spaceships

Over the last 100 years, we've gone from having some interesting math that said interplanetary travel might be possible, to robot explorers mapping the outer Solar system.

Today, we've got off-the-shelf hardware that could get to nearby stars a million years. Much less, actually:

"...The Voyager spacecraft left the solar system at 37,000 miles per hour. At that speed, it would take Voyager 80,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri...."
("A Look at the Scaling," NASA)

Not that Voyager is going to Alpha Centauri: it's headed in another direction, and the ship's radio wouldn't still be working in the year 82012, anyway.

Propulsion technologies that could substantially reduce travel time to other stars are in development. Others are still strictly theoretical: Alcubierre's equations may or may not lead to a practical 'warp drive.'

Give humanity another million years, though, and it's the Lemming's guess that someone will have sent probes to other stars. And, more than likely, made the trip in person.

Possible, but Probable?

Like the Lemming said, under "'What If',"

It's possible, in the Lemming's opinion, that someone else did what humanity is doing now, kept developing new technologies: and might have visited Earth: at some point in the last 4,000,000,000 years. But in the last 40? With nobody noticing? That, in the Lemming's opinion, is very unlikely. Right now, there doesn't seem to be reliable evidence either for or against the idea that travelers found Earth.

But the Lemming thinks it's possible that someone else is out there. It's even possible that someone visited Earth. Maybe recently: like in the last 1,000,000 years. More likely, humanity missed the visitors by roughly 10,000,000 years. Or 100,000,000. Or more. Assuming that someone did stop by, of course.

What are the odds that humanity has company in the universe: folks more-or-less like the featherless bipeds of Earth? Where 'more-or-less like' includes chaps like the imagined alien over there, from "Alien Contact."

That's a good question: and until there's a lot more data available, there doesn't seem to be a definite answer.

Related posts:
Somewhat-related posts:
Still more related posts:

Monday, February 27, 2012

That's the Size of It: Eames Video of the Universe

"Powers of Ten™"

EamesOffice, YouTube (1977) (uploaded August 26, 2010)
video, 9:01

"Powers of Ten takes us on an adventure in magnitudes. Starting at a picnic by the lakeside in Chicago, this famous film transports us to the outer edges of the universe. Every ten seconds we view the starting point from ten times farther out until our own galaxy is visible only...."

The video zooms out from that picnic to the edge of the (known) universe, then back in - and keeps going until the viewer gets up close and personal with part of a proton.

It's a pretty good way to get a feel for just how big - and small - the universe is, and how much detail there is to study at just about every imaginable scale.

Related posts:

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Weaving a Universe: New Look at Vanishing Dimensions

"Did the Universe Begin As a Simple 1-D Line?"
Natalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries, Space.com (April 22, 2011)


(NASA, via Space.com, used w/o permission)
"Incomprehensible as it sound, inflation poses that the universe initially expanded far faster than the speed of light and grew from a subatomic size to a golf-ball size almost instantaneously. | CREDIT: NASA"

"A refreshingly simple new idea has emerged in the complicated world of high energy physics. It proposes that the early universe was a one-dimensional line. Not an exploding sphere, not a chaotic ball of fire. Just a simple line of pure energy.

"Over time, as that line grew, it crisscrossed and intersected itself more and more, gradually forming a tightly interwoven fabric, which, at large distances, appeared as a 2-D plane. More time passed and the 2-D universe expanded and twisted about, eventually creating a web — the 3-D universe we see today.

"This concept, called 'vanishing dimensions' to describe what happens the farther one looks back in time, has been gaining traction within the high energy physics community in recent months.

The Lemming's no theoretical physicist, but the simplicity of the 'vanishing dimensions' model is attractive - aesthetically, if nothing else.

Maybe another reason the 'vanishing dimensions' cosmological model looks good is that we've been through this sort of thing before, in a way.

The Ptolemaic model for the universe - with Earth in the middle, surrounded by concentric circles and spheres all moving at a steady pace - was simple enough. Problem was, it wasn't a particularly good match for what we actually saw in the sky - like planets apparently slowing down, stopping, backing up, and then going 'forward' again.

Folks who liked the Ptolemaic system had and answer: more circles. Lots and lots more circles. epicycles is what they called them - and by the time they were through, they had a wonderfully elaborate set of epicycles circling epicycles circling - - - but the thing still didn't match what we saw in the sky.

Then Copernicus came along, with a model that had our sun in the center. Turns out, the 'perfect circles' idea isn't the way the Solar system works - but even assuming that the orbits of planets were exactly circular - the comparatively simple Copernican model was a much better match to observations, that the Ptolemaic system.

Maybe this 'vanishing dimensions' thing is another case of 'simpler is better.'

Back to the Space.com article:

Vanishing Dimensions and Occam's Razor

"...If correct, it promises to bridge the gap between quantum mechanics -- the physics of the very small -- and general relativity – the physics of space-time. It would also make sense of the properties of a hypothetical elementary particle called the Higgs boson. And best of all, it would do so with elegant simplicity.

" 'In the last 30 years, [physicists] were trying to make our theories more complicated by introducing more particles, more dimensions,' said Dejan Stojkovic, a physicist at the University of Buffalo who researches vanishing dimensions. 'We decided to go the other way and make theories less complicated in the high energy realm. At high energy [in the early universe], we are changing the background on which the standard model of particle physics is formulated. In 1-D, the problem greatly simplifies.'..."

Like the Lemming said before: sometimes the trick is to see which explanation is simpler. That principle's called Occam's Razor - named after William of Occam, a Franciscan friar. (Phil Gibbs, 1996; Sugihara Hiroshi, 1997; math.ucr.edu)

What's particularly attractive about the 'vanishing dimensions' model is that it can be tested. There's one experiment, mentioned in the article, that will/would 'look' at gravity waves. Just one problem with that: it seems that nobody's managed to detect a gravity wave yet.

There are other ways to test the 'vanishing dimensions' model, though: outlined in the article.

Whether it turns out to be a good match with reality or not: the 'vanishing dimensions' model for the early universe is a fascinating, elegant, idea. In the Lemming's opinion.

Somewhat-related posts:

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Betelgeuse Blows in 2012? 'Don't Bet on It'

"Dying Star Betelgeuse Won't Explode in 2012, Experts Say"
FoxNews.com (January 21, 2011)

"The super-giant red star Betelgeuse in Orion’s nebula is predicted to cataclysmically explode, and the impending supernova may even reach Earth -- someday.

"But will it happen by 2012, as recent news reports suggest? Probably not, experts told FoxNews.com. While the second biggest star in the universe is strangely losing mass -- and has already become a red giant, meaning it is destined to explode and become a supernova -- there's no reason to believe that it will happen anytime soon.

" 'The story is pretty "Hollywoody,"' said New Jersey Institute of Technology professor Philip R. Goode. In reality, the stars eventual explosion is inevitable, but no one knows when it will happen, he explained -- 2012 is pure conjecture...."

The article quotes Phil Plait, of Discovery News, who pointed out that Betelgeuse is too far away to do us much harm.

There's also a (very) short discussion of why Betelgeuse is about to blow: basically, it's running out of fuel.

The Lemming's written about Betelgeuse before. Also the various and sundry 'end-of-the-world' fads of the last thousand years or so.

Back to P. Plait: He's quoted, again, saying that Betelgeuse is expected to explode 'soon' - by cosmic standards. That's somewhere between right new and maybe 100,000 years from now.

The article ends with: "...Goode agreed. 'If you want to bet on it, it's better to try the lottery,' he said."

The 'Betelgeuse in 2012' thing reminded me of a recipe I made up for a post a few years back:

Recipe for fear and panic:
  • Take one handful of journalists
  • Add a pinch of facts
  • Fold in one gallon of assumptions
  • Shake vigorously
  • Serve before facts rise to surface
    (October 10, 2007)
To be fair, the Lemming thinks there are some journalists who know how to use Google, and know the difference between a star and a planet. And that's another topic.

Sort-of-related posts:

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Orion: Stars Under Construction and Otherwise

"Great Hunter Orion Now Looms Large in the Night Sky"
Joe Rao, Space.com (January 7, 2011)

"If you look about due south around 9 p.m. your local time this week, you may see a familiar sight dominating our winter skies: the Great Hunter or Celestial Warrior, Orion, the most brilliant of the constellations and visible from every inhabited part of the Earth.

"This Orion constellation sky map shows what the famed star pattern will look like in the winter skies of the Northern Hemisphere, weather permitting.

"As is also the case with the mighty Hercules, the figure of Orion has been associated in virtually all ancient cultures with great national heroes, warriors or demigods. Yet, in contrast to Hercules, who was credited with a detailed series of exploits, Orion seems to us a vague and shadowy figure...."

The article has a pretty good star chart of Orion and surrounding constellations.

There's also a story about Orion, Hera, and a scorpion assassin. In tales from ancient Greece, one gets the idea that the Olympus crowd didn't appreciate bragging. Which is another topic.

Where was the Lemming? Orion. Constellation. Stars. Right. Mr. Rao gets into discussions of some of the real estate out in that direction. Like Rigel and Betelgeuse: both bright stars in our sky, but quite different in their current status.

I've written about Betelgeuse before, and put links at the end of this post. Bottom line about Betelgeuse: there's a good chance that it's going to explode in the not-too-distant future: "only a few million years," according to the article. When it blows, we'll be at an almost ideal viewing distance.

Then there's the Great Orion Nebula, where new stars are forming from a huge and (comparatively) dense cloud of dust and gas. The nebula is about 30 light years across: which makes it a naked-eye object at a distance of around 1,600 light years.

The Lemming likes the constellation Orion: partly because of the sights off in that direction; partly because it's one of the easier constellations to pick out.

Somewhat-related posts:

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Comets: Looks Like They May Not All be From Around Here.

"Wanted for Theft: Sun Stole Its Comets From Other Stars"
Nola Redd, Space.com (November 23, 2010)

"It turns out our sun may be a cosmic thief that's stolen most of its comets from other stars, a new study suggests.

"Comets are small icy bodies that flare up when they near the sun as solar radiation vaporizes their ice to create a glowing tail.

"New computer simulations of the billions of comets crisscrossing the solar system suggest that most of them originated beyond our local neighborhood, but got grabbed and pulled in by our sun's gravity later...."

Current models of how the Solar system formed give a pretty good explanation for where comets come from: There's good reason to think that they formed from the same cloud of gas and dust that our sun, Earth, and the other planets did.

Just one problem. Although the Oort cloud comets are too far away to detect - directly - so far - we've got a pretty good census for comets that swing in close to the sun. That's not the problem.

It's the numbers.

They don't add up.

Back to the article:

"...[Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, Colorado's Hal] Levison and his team say there seem to be around 400 billion comets hovering just beyond Pluto. In comparison, the conventional model predicts only 6 billion.

" 'That's...a huge discrepancy,' Levison said. 'Too huge to be explained by mistakes in the estimates. There's no way we could be that far off, so there has to be something wrong with the model itself.'..."

Assuming that comets - some of them, anyway - came from the neighborhood of other stars helps explain the number of comets we see. It also explains the orbits of quite a few long-period comets: which can go far into the depths of space.

That means that we may be able to get samples of material from other stars a whole lot sooner than however long it takes to build really fast starships.

"...Comets are generally regarded as excellent snapshots of the early solar system, because they spend much of their lives encased in ice. But if some of these comets come from outside our solar system, then they can tell us about their parent stars, as well.

" 'We can study the orbits of comets and put their chemistry into the context of where and around which star they formed,' Levison said. 'It's intriguing to think we got some of our "stuff" from distant stars. We're kin.' "

Intriguing: and somewhat 'old news,' too. Our current models for how the universe works say that everything we're made of, apart from hydrogen, and maybe helium, was made in the cores of very old, very massive, stars.

And that's another topic.

Related posts:

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Earth, Gold, the Early Solar System, and New Ideas

"Ancient Crashes Blasted Precious Metals Into Earth, Moon and Mars"
Mike Wall, Space.com (December 9, 2010)

"Gigantic collisions on Earth, the moon and Mars 4.5 billion years ago injected precious elements such as gold and platinum into the developing worlds, a new study suggests.

"In the last days of planet formation, a body as big as Pluto likely slammed into Earth after the planet had been clobbered by a Mars-size object, researchers said. Mars and the moon absorbed smaller but still devastating blows, they added.

"These traumatic cosmic crashes may have knocked Earth off its axis by 10 degrees. But they also delivered gold and other elements into the bodies' upper reaches, and possibly brought huge amounts of water to the moon, researchers said...."

The point at issue is that there's quite a lot of Gold, platinum, palladium, and other elements at and near Earth's surface.

Which shouldn't be there. Assuming that current models for how planets formed are fairly close to being accurate.

The models could be wrong - but there's a whole lot of other data that supports them.

The Space.com article runs through a newish explanation for why thar's gold in that there crust on Earth - which is involved with an explanation for the size range of asteroids is skewed toward big bits of stuff. And the Borealis Basin on Mars. Assuming that it's an impact feature. Which isn't certain.

That lack of certainty will probably be the norm for a while, particularly since we're starting to get data about other planetary systems.

"...The study paints a violent picture of the solar system's early days, with the inner planets being walloped heartily shortly after their birth. Such pummelings might be common in other newly forming solar systems, according to Bottke.

" 'Because we can reproduce some of these things in our models, I think that probably means we're fairly typical,' he said. 'But that's just a guess.'

"If our solar system is atypical — if young planets in other solar systems were spared pummelings by massive impactors late in the formation process — then alien planets might be different in significant ways, Bottke said. Their mantles, for example, might be lacking in siderophiles like gold and platinum, which we value for a variety of reasons.

"In any event, Bottke said he hopes the study serves as a conversation starter, getting scientists thinking about the planet-formation process in a more general sense...."

The way that the new models match what we can observe in the Solar system is exciting - and so is the uncertainty reflected in "that's just a guess." There's a lot yet to be learned - and now scientists have a new set of questions to ask.

Like this post? Tweet it: Or, not: your choice.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Twinkle, Twinkle - - - Like a Zircon in the Sky

"Distant Star Enveloped By Ingredients for Fake Diamonds "
Space.com (December 7, 2010)

"A faraway star sparkles with the largest amount of zirconium — the stuff fake diamonds are made from — ever seen, according to a new study.

"The star has about 10,000 times more zirconium than our sun, in a form never recorded by astronomers before, researchers said. The strange star also has far more than the usual amounts of other elements like strontium, germanium and yttrium, they added.

" 'The huge excess of zirconium was a complete surprise,' the study's lead author, Naslim Neelamkodan, from Northern Ireland's Armagh Observatory, said in a statement. 'We had no reason to think this star was more peculiar than any other faint blue star discovered so far.'

"The researchers estimate that the zirconium cloud layer on the star weighs about 4 billion tons, or 4,000 times the world's annual production of zirconium...."

The star's called LS IV-14 116, it's about 2,000 light-years away and too dim to see without a really good telescope. If you could see it, it'd be on or near the border between the constellations Capricorn and Aquarius.

And no: the Lemming does not think that the freakishly high concentration of zirconium on that star is evidence of space aliens. It'd make a good story though: Enterprising space aliens fiddling with a star's chemistry to produce billions of tons of zirconium - which they would use to mass-produce cubic zirconia jewelry, undercutting the galaxy's diamond trade and thereby crushing the De Beers-Illuminati conspiracy!

Oops. The Lemming got carried away.

Back to the real world and LS IV-14 116.

Apparently the star is of the sort called a helium-rich hot subdwarf, except that it's - different. As the article said:

"...They found evidence of various common elements, as expected. But less expected were the strong signals indicating the presence of zirconium, in an odd form that exists only at temperatures above 36,000 degrees Fahrenheit (20,000 degrees Celsius).

"This type of zirconium had never been found in an astronomical spectrum, according to researchers...."

So: LS IV-14 116 is really different: with a unique substance in its atmosphere. As the Lemming's written before: when observation matches pretty closely to what's predicted, that's satisfactory; when observation shows something unexpected, that's exciting. It's exciting because there's something new to be learned.

In this case, probably about stellar evolution.

Like this post? Tweet it: Or, not.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

A Sandbar Made of Galaxies

"Astronomers Probe 'Sandbar' Between Islands of Galaxies"
Adam Hadhazy, Mission News, Spitzer, NASA (November 24, 2010)

"Astronomers have caught sight of an unusual galaxy that has illuminated new details about a celestial 'sandbar' connecting two massive islands of galaxies. The research was conducted in part with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.

"These 'sandbars,' or filaments, are known to span vast distances between galaxy clusters and form a lattice-like structure known as the cosmic web. Though immense, these filaments are difficult to see and study in detail. Two years ago, Spitzer's infrared eyes revealed that one such intergalactic filament containing star-forming galaxies ran between the galaxy clusters called Abell 1763 and Abell 1770.

"Now these observations have been bolstered by the discovery, inside this same filament, of a galaxy that has a rare boomerang shape and unusual light emissions. Hot gas is sweeping the wandering galaxy into this shape as it passes through the filament, presenting a new way to gauge the filament's particle density. Researchers hope that other such galaxies with oddly curved profiles could serve as signposts for the faint threads, which in turn signify regions ripe for forming stars...."

Since this 'bent' galaxy is about 11,000,000 light years away, we're not sending a probe there. Not any time soon. And what astronomers and cosmologists learn about it isn't likely to affect the next Super Bowl, or help anyone win the lottery.

Still, the Lemming thinks this sort of thing is interesting.

As for why studying this cosmic sandbar is important:

"...Knowing how much material these filaments contain and how they interact with galaxy clusters will be very important for understanding the overall evolution of the universe, Edwards said...."

Sort-of-related posts:
A tip of the hat to NASA, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this page.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Young Black Hole - Not Exactly "Seen," But Detected

"Evidence Found for Youngest Black Hole Ever Seen"
Mike Wall, Space.com (November 15, 2010)

"A cosmic explosion seen 31 years ago may have been the birth cry of the youngest black hole ever observed, which could help researchers understand how black holes are born and evolve.

"Studying a baby black hole should also help astronomers understand what determines the fate of stars, as well as how common black holes are in our galaxy and throughout the universe, researchers said. [Photo of the baby black hole's location.]

" 'What's really exciting about it is we know the exact birth date of a black hole for the first time,' Kim Weaver, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, told reporters today (Nov. 15). 'It's a wonderful opportunity for astronomers to look at these young systems.'..."

It's taken the light from SN 1979C, the name of the supernova that (very likely) generated the new black hole, around 50,000,000 years to get here - but what we're seeing now is light from a 31-year-old black hole - so, yes: Astronomers are looking at a young system.

50,000,000 light years is - quite a long distance. But on a cosmic scale SN1979C is close. And, if current models of how black holes form are right, this is a fairly 'typical' one. Although it seems to be about as small as that sort of black hole can be:

"...Researchers think the star that exploded to form SN 1979C was about 20 times as massive as our sun. Star masses dictate what happens to them after death, and this one appears to be right on the dividing line between two divergent fates.

"Stars less than 20 solar masses tend to form extraordinarily dense objects called neutron stars, while larger ones turn into light-swallowing black holes, researchers said. So SN 1979C should help them map out more precisely where that dividing line is.

" 'This supernova will help astronomers understand which stellar explosions make neutron stars and which ones make black holes,' said Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley...."

All of which won't help the Lemming start the van on cold winter mornings. But there's more to life than antifreeze and headbolt heaters.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Looks Like a Cosmic Constant - Isn't

"New Physics? Fundamental Cosmic Constant Now Seems Shifty"
Space.com (September 14, 2010)

"A fundamental constant of the universe may not be so constant after all, according to a new study.

"Recent observations of distant galaxies suggest that the strength of the electromagnetic force – the so-called fine-structure constant – actually varies throughout the universe. In one direction, the constant seemed to grow larger the farther astronomers looked; in another direction the constant took on smaller values with greater distance.

"If confirmed, this revelation could reshape physicists' understanding of cosmology from the ground up. It may even help solve a major conundrum: Why are all the constants of nature perfectly tuned for life to exist?..."

The article tells how researchers measured the electromagnetic force (also called the fine-structure constant or the alpha constant) in distant galaxies - it has to do with how parts of atoms in known substances act.

What's downright odd isn't so much that the electromagnetic force changes as you observe more and more distant galaxies. Astronomers and astrophysicists have come to grips with the idea that the universe started at a particular point, and has been expanding ever since. Since light takes time to get to us, those distant galaxies appear as they were, millions or billions of years ago. Looking into (very) deep space is like looking into the past. The galaxies were closer together then, than they are now, for one thing.

What's - odd - is that the electromagnetic force gets stronger, the deeper in space (and time) the astronomers look. In in one direction. In the opposite direction, the electromagnetic force gets weaker, the deeper they look.

That's - odd.

So That's Why There's No Intergalactic Empire?

Earth can support life - and has done so for the last several billion years. We've been finding life's component parts - 'building blocks' is a favorite journalistic phrase for them - on other planets and moons - and spread between stars.

I read a book whose authors seemed determined to demonstrate that life was well-nigh impossible. According to them, the existence of life on this planet probably didn't exist. (August 13, 2009) My guess is that their arguments aren't - quite - as solid as the book makes them appear to be.

On the other hand, we're not up to our hips in the space-alien equivalent of discarded oil drums and six-pack rings: and that has to be accounted for, in considering what the universe as a whole is like.

Assuming that today's interpretations of observations of the alpha constant are correct - and that's an assumption that's going to be discussed by researchers now that the word's out - it looks like our Milky Way galaxy may be in a particularly nice part of the universe.

"...[University of New South Wales' researcher Victor] Flambaum said he was particularly interested in what the result could tell scientists about the origin of life.

" 'This is a puzzle which has existed for many years,' he told SPACE.com. 'A minor variation of the fundamental constants forbids life to appear – we just could not exist.'

"For Flambaum and others, it seemed like too much of a coincidence that the universe's constants – which includes the alpha constant and others like the value of the strength of gravity, or the strength of the strong interaction that binds atomic nuclei together – should be perfect for building stars and planets and life.

" 'Now we have an explanation,' Flambaum said.'If fundamental constants vary in space, we just appear in the area of the universe where constants are good for us.'

"In other regions of the universe where the constants are different, life may be absent, he said...."

Over the last few centuries we've noticed a few regularities in the way the universe works. We've also had to change a few assumptions along the way. The latest discussion of the alpha constant (or not-so-constant) reminded me of one of my favorite quotes:

" 'Your mistake is to think that the little regularities we have observed on one planet for a few hundred years are the real unbreakable laws....' "
(Grace Ironwood, Chapter 17.4, "That Hideous Strength" C. S. Lewis (1946))
(I've used this quote in A Catholic Citizen in America, too. (November 30, 2009) Like I said: it's one of my favorites.)

Related posts:More related posts, at

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

A Handful of Planets Found Around HD 10180

"Alien Solar System Looks Strikingly Like Ours "
Space.com (August 24, 2010)

"Astronomers have discovered a group of at least five planets – with hints of two more – circling around a star in an arrangement similar to our own solar system. Confirmation of the extra planets would make this the highest tally of alien worlds ever spotted around a single star.

"The planets and their own sun-like star are about 127 light-years from Earth, astronomers with the European Southern Observatory said. It is one of just 15 planetary systems known to have more than three worlds.

"The five planets circle their parent star, HD 10180, in a regular pattern like the planets of our solar system, only in a more compact arrangement, the researchers said.

"Of the two potential additional planets that may be present, one may have a mass that is the closest to the Earth's yet seen, if it is confirmed, they added. [The Strangest Alien Planets]..."

Five planets (at least) in about as much space as the first three of our star's planets orbit are a trifle crowded: by Solar system standards. But HD 10180 sounds like a remarkably close match to the planetary system that our Earth is in: right down to the nearly-circular orbits.

It doesn't sound like any of the five (or seven, if educated guesses about extra wobbles are correct) could support life-as-we-know-it. Still, HD 10180 should give astronomers and cosmologists a chance to fine-tune their theories on planet formation.

The Space.com article gives a little detail about the orbits of these new-to-us planets:

"...The closest planet is not quite 5.6 million miles (9 million km) from HD 10180, compared to the 93 million miles (150 million km) separating Earth from the sun, a distance also known as an astronomical unit. The distance of the farthest one from its star is about 1.4 AU.

"When compared to our solar system, all of these planets would fit inside the orbit of Mars and appear to have nearly circular orbits...."

Whatever the planets of HD 10180 are, they don't seem to be gas giants.

The Lemming is looking forward to learning more about those worlds.

Exciting times, these.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Sinister Bias in Life's Chemicals Linked to Supernovas

"Supernova Explosions Offer Potential Spin on Life's Origins"
Space.com (August 16, 2010)

"A mysterious bias in the way the building blocks of proteins twist could be due to supernovas, researchers now suggest.

"If correct, this could be evidence that the molecules of life weren't created on Earth, but came from elsewhere in the cosmos.

"Organic molecules are often chiral, meaning they come in two versions that are mirror images of each other, much as right and left hands appear identical but possess reversed features.

"Curiously, on Earth, the amino acids that form the proteins for life are virtually all 'left-handed,' even though it should be as easy to make one version as the other. Even more strangely, samples of certain amino acids obtained from the Murchison meteorite were mostly left-handed also, suggesting there could be a bias for left-handed amino acids throughout the rest of the cosmos...."

Or, not so strangely. The Murchison meteorite, and Earth, have been spending a whole lot of time in the Milky Way galaxy. Which is a place where supernovas go off on a fairly regular basis.

That's where this latest big of informed speculation gets started:

"...As stars collapse right before they become supernovas, they generate an intense burst of electron antineutrinos that the researchers suggest would preferentially interact with nitrogen atoms in right-handed amino acids. All atoms possess 'spin,' and the handedness of an amino acid can influence how the spin of the nitrogen atoms within them align.

"The antineutrinos, possessing a spin of their own, would prefer to interact with the way nitrogen atoms spin in right-handed amino acids rather than left-handed ones, since the spins of the antineutrinos and nitrogen atoms would align.

"As a result, the antineutrinos would preferentially convert the nitrogen atoms in right-handed amino acids into carbon atoms. Boyd and his colleagues suggest this would result in the destruction of right-handed amino acids, leaving only the left-handed versions behind...."

There's a paragraph about the effect on neutron stars' magnetic fields on the (extremely thin) clouds of gas around them, too.

The bottom line seems to be that, given time, a mix of amino acids in one of those clouds of molecules may be 'filtered' by antineutrinos and maybe magnetic fields, until what's left are the left-handed set we use.

Which means that if there's life elsewhere, it may not be all that different from us - at least on the molecular level.

Related posts:More related posts, at

Friday, August 13, 2010

2008 LC18 - Neptune Trojan Asteroid Discovered

"Asteroid Near Neptune Found in Gravitational Dead Zone"
Space.com (August 12, 2010)

"Astronomers have discovered a new asteroid in a region of Neptune's orbit where no previous object was known to exist -- a so-called gravitational 'dead zone.'

"The asteroid, which follows Neptune's orbit around the sun, may help shed light on fundamental questions about planetary formation and migration.

"The asteroid, classified as a Trojan, was found in a difficult-to-detect area near Neptune, known as the Lagrangian point L5. Lagrangian points are five areas in space where the gravitational tugs from two relatively massive bodies -- such as Neptune and the sun -- balance out. This allows smaller bodies, like asteroids, to remain stable and fixed in synch with the planet's orbit, as they orbit the sun. ..."

The article gives a pretty good look at what may be the start of a new wave of observations.

That phrase, "dead zone," in the title and first paragraph? It sounds cool, and probably encourages folks to read the article - but I think it's a bit more accurate to visualize the Lagrange points as invisible 'dips' in space-time where debris tends to collect.

Reading that, I think I see why the Space.com editors decided to go with "dead zone." It sounds much cooler.

I think the new asteroid is more intriguing than informative - at least for now. Astronomers think they'll be able to get a better idea of what happened as the Solar system developed, after studying this object. It's called 2008 LC18, by the way.

And others like it.

"...'We believe Neptune Trojans outnumber the Jupiter Trojans and the main-belt asteroids between Mars and Jupiter,' Scott Sheppard of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C., told SPACE.com. 'If Neptune was where the main-belt was, we'd know thousands of these objects.'..."

I'd like to know why Scott Sheppard thinks there are that many Neptune Trojans: but I won't make snide cracks about his estimate. My guess is that the estimated count derives from what little astronomers have been able to learn of

"...'We estimate that the new Neptune Trojan has a diameter of about 62 miles (100 km), and that there are about 150 Neptune Trojans of similar size at L5,' Sheppard said. 'It matches the population estimates for the L4 Neptune stability regions.'..."

2008 LC18 is so far away - and, more to the point, so dim - that it's hard-to-impossible to tell what it's made of. Today. A few years from now? My guess is that it'll be a sort of race, to see whether someone gets a robot probe to 2008 LC18 before near-Earth telescopes get a clear look at the thing, and start analyzing its surface.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Dark Matter Either Exists, or It Doesn't

"Dark Energy and Dark Matter Might Not Exist, Scientists Allege "
Space.com (June 13, 2010)
Dark Matter Either Exists, or It Doesn't
"Dark matter and dark energy are two of the most mind-boggling ingredients in the universe. Ever since these concepts were first proposed, some astronomers have worked feverishly to figure out what each thing is, while other astronomers have tried to prove they don't exist, in hopes of restoring the universe to the more understandable place many would like it to be.

"A new look at the data from one of the telescopes used to establish the existence of this strange stuff is causing some scientists to question whether they really exist at all. Yet other experts are holding firm to the idea that, whether we like it or not, the 'dark side' of the universe is here to stay.

"Dark matter is a proposed form of matter that could make up 22 percent of the universe's mass-energy budget, vastly outweighing all the normal matter, like stars and galaxies. Astronomers can't observe dark matter directly, but they think it's there because of the gravitational pull it seems to exert on everything else. Without dark matter, the thinking goes, galaxies would fly apart...."

Literary allusions to the Star Wars movies aside, this is a pretty good article.

There's a short overview of what dark matter and dark energy are - why some cosmologists and physicists think they exist - and why some now don't. The reason, as I see it, that there isn't a consensus is that we've got a fairly large set of data about the universe. Some of it is very precise, some isn't so precise: not wrong, just 'fuzzy.' Like some aspects of the microwave background radiation.

Slice and dice the data one way, you get support for the idea that dark matter exists. Run it through a virtual Cuisinart another way: and dark matter isn't so obvious.

This sort of thing is nothing new. Around 340 years ago, phlogiston was a pretty good way to explain combustion. It was a hypothetical substance present in materials that can burn. As it turns out, phlogiston doesn't exist. But until we learned more about matter, it was a model that made sense.

Which is about where we're at with dark matter today.

Related posts:

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Earth and Moon May Be Younger Than Thought - But Not By Much

"Earth and Moon Are Younger Than Thought "
Space.com (June 10, 2010)

"Earth is not exactly getting its youth back, but a new study has determined that the collision from which the Earth and moon were formed may have occurred much later than previously thought, making our planet and moon younger than scientists had commonly believed.

"The Earth and the moon were created as a result of a giant collision between two planets the size of Mars and Venus. Until now, it was believed that the collision occurred when the solar system was 30 million years old – roughly 4.5 billion years ago.

"But, according to a new study that was recently published in the scientific journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, the true age of the Earth and moon can be determined by examining the presence of certain radioactive elements in the Earth's mantle.

"The results of the research show that the Earth and moon must have formed much later than previously thought – perhaps up to 150 million years after the formation of the solar system. That makes our home planet a bit younger than scientists thought...."

Let's look at those numbers:
  • 4,500,000,000: age of Earth
    • Roughly, according to previous research
  • 4,350,000,000: age of Earth
    • Roughly, according to this research
150,000,000 years is a long time, compared to the lifespan of a human being - or a sequoia. But the current estimate is 96.6% of the previous one. Significant, yes, but not all that big.

It's sort of like the difference between being 45 years old and halfway between birthdays, and being 43 years old with a birthday coming in about four months.

The Space.com article describes how the new date of the Earth-Moon system's formation was determined. And, gives a really short description of how two planet-size bodies apparently collided to form the Earth and Moon we know.
Related posts, at

Friday, May 7, 2010

RCW 120: 'Impossible' Young Star Found by Herschel

"Birth of 'Impossible' Star Seen by European Space Telescope"
Space.com (May 6, 2010)

"New cosmic observations from the European-built Herschel infrared space observatory have revealed previously hidden details of star form tucked away in distant galaxies. One snapshot reveals what researchers called an 'impossible' star caught in the act of forming.

"The new images show thousands of these galaxies and beautiful star-forming clouds draped across the Milky Way.

"These images were part of the presentation of the first results from Herschel, which was launch on May 14 of last year, today during a major scientific symposium held at the European Space Agency (ESA), which runs the observatory, in Noordwijk, Netherlands. These results challenge old ideas of star birth, and open new roads for future research...."

"'Impossible' star

"In a statement, European scientists said Herschel has discovered an 'impossible' star so massive it would dwarf our own sun, but they are perplexed as to how it came to be. Herschel found the embryonic star in the star-forming cloud RCW 120...."

Here's a look at RCW 120:

"This galactic bubble is known as RCW 120. It lies about 4300 light-years away and has been formed by a star at its center. The star is not visible at these infrared wavelengths but pushes on the surrounding dust and gas with nothing more than the power of its starlight. Credit: ESA/PACS/SPIRE/HOBYS Consortia"

Another Star is Forming: What's so 'Impossible' About It?

Here's the deal: astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists have come a long way in the last half-century or so. They've got a pretty good set of data, and a quite good set of mathematical models to account for how the stars we see formed and are evolving.

According to those models, no star can start out with more than eight times the mass of our sun.

The star that's forming inside RCW 120 has eight to 10 solar masses: and is still growing.

It's not the first 'too massive' star found. What's special about RCW 120 is that astronomers caught it as it is forming. Massive stars like this don't last long, and are quite rare.

Spotting one so close, this early in its development, is a major find. And yes, 4,300 light years is "close" by cosmic - or even galactic - standards. We're practically on top of the thing.

Somewhere in the next few hundred thousand years, RCW 120 will become one of the biggest, brightest stars in this galaxy. And, if astronomers can keep getting grants for their research - or finding other ways of supporting their work - we'll be able to document the process.

Given how much prep time we've got, astronomers may be able to get observing facilities set up closer to the star. Impossible? Okay: but remember that the Herschel observatory is a robot in Earth orbit. When I was growing up, that was literally 'science fiction.'

'My Mirror is Bigger Than Your Mirror'

"...The diameter of Herschel's main mirror is four times larger than any other infrared space telescope and 1.5 times larger than the Hubble Space Telescope...."

When it comes to telescopes, sometimes bigger is better. Particularly is you're trying to collect as much electromagnetic radiation (infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, whatever) as possible.

Sort-of-Related Posts:

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Hubble: 20 Years; Amazing Pictures; Serious Science


Source: Hubblesite.org

"Starry-Eyed Hubble Celebrates 20 Years of Awe and Discovery"
HubbleSite (April 22, 2010)

"NASA's best-recognized, longest-lived, and most prolific space observatory zooms past a threshold of 20 years of operation this month. On April 24, 1990, the space shuttle and crew of STS-31 were launched to deploy the Hubble Space Telescope into a low Earth orbit. What followed was one of the most remarkable sagas of the space age. Hubble's unprecedented capabilities made it one of the most powerful science instruments ever conceived by humans, and certainly the one most embraced by the public. Hubble discoveries revolutionized nearly all areas of current astronomical research, from planetary science to cosmology...."

In short, Hubble's a pretty big deal. And it's 20 years old. Yesterday.

Related posts:
Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle online store

Pinterest: From the Man Behind the Lemming

Top 10 Most-Viewed Posts

Today's News! Some of it, anyway

Actually, some of yesterday's news may be here. Or maybe last week's.
The software and science stuff might still be interesting, though. Or not.
The Lemming thinks it's interesting: Your experience may vary.
("Following" list moved here, after Blogger changed formats)

Who Follows the Lemming?

WebSTAT

Family Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory