Posts Tagged ‘astronomy’
“It is clear that there is no classification of the Universe that is not arbitrary and full of conjectures. The reason for this is very simple: we do not know what kind of thing the universe is.”*…
… Still, scientists try. Ethan Siegel on the current state of play– with special attention to whether or not our cosmic landscape is endless or not, and why the Universe is so uniform on large scales, but so non-uniform on smaller scales…
13.8 billion years ago, our Universe as we know it began with the hot Big Bang, which gave rise to a primordial soup of particles and antiparticles that led to the planets, stars, and galaxies we know today. The hot Big Bang itself was set up by a preceding phase known as cosmic inflation, but only the final tiny fraction-of-a-second gets imprinted onto our observable Universe. What we can observe about the Universe is finite, but what about the unobservable parts that lie beyond it: are they finite or infinite? What the data can tell us is limited, but here’s what we think and why…
Read on to find out: “Is the Universe finite or infinite?” from @StartsWithABang in @bigthink.
* Jorge Luis Borges, in “The Analytical Language of John Wilkins”
###
As we stargaze, we might send sunny birthday greetings to Herbert Friedman; he was born on this date in 1916. A physicist and astronomer, he made seminal contributions to the study of solar radiation. Friedman joined the Naval Research Laboratory in 1940 and developed defense-related radiation detection devices during WW II. In 1949, he obtained the first scientific proof that X rays emanate from the sun, when he directed the firing into space of a V-2 rocket carrying a detecting instrument. Through subsequent rocket astronomy, he also produced the first ultraviolet map of celestial bodies, and gathered information for the theory that stars are being continuously formed, on space radiation affecting Earth, and on the nature of gases in space. Friedman also made fundamental advances in the application of x rays to material analysis.
“Our grandfathers lived in a world of largely self-sufficient, inward-looking national economies – but our great-great grandfathers lived, as we do, in a world of large-scale international trade and investment, a world destroyed by nationalism.”*…
There’s a growing chorus of opinion arguing that the era of global trade is ending. To be sure, nationalism and the protectionism it can spawn are on the rise. But is globalization’s decline now locked in? In a recent speech at the University of Tokyo, Bill Emmott questions the conclusions of The Economist (which he used to edit) and others predicting an end to a world in which goods and services flow relatively freely– pointing out the global trade is still very much alive. It’s a provocative talk, eminently worth reading in full; it ends with a framework for thinking about the question…
The history of globalisation that I have outlined has shown the development of international trade in goods and services to have been driven by three main forces:
- Peace, war and international security
- National external trade policies
- Technology, and its effect on transaction costs
It is clear that the biggest discontinuity in the growth of international commerce was caused by what we now know as the two world wars of the 20th century.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has certainly diverted trade and financial flows considerably, thanks to direct security effects and to sanctions. But neither it nor the other conflicts we can see occurring in the Middle East, Africa or elsewhere have been sufficient to block global trade in a significant way.
Tensions between the US and China similarly have some diversionary effects, and are to some degree echoed in tensions between China and Europe and China and Japan. But those geopolitical tensions would have to get a lot worse to have a major effect on global commerce as a whole, in part because the world economy has become much more complex and multipolar in nature.
The one conflict that would be very likely to have a major “deglobalisation” influence would be a conflict between the US and China over Taiwan, for such a conflict would very likely reach catastrophic proportions and would force many countries to choose sides. We cannot predict how commerce and the exchange of ideas would look after such a conflict, just as my European forebears would have been unable to predict the world after 1918 from the standpoint of 1914 or earlier.
Secondly, nations’ external trade policies. As I commented earlier, there has been a clear trend back towards protectionism since the 2008 financial crisis, one that has lately been reinforced by policies aimed at the energy transition and by US-China tensions.
This has not yet however had a major effect on world trade. It could, of course. The big question is what would happen if Donald Trump is re-elected as US President in November and carries out his promise to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods, and a 60% tariff on all goods from China.
One quite likely possibility is that other countries – including the EU, the UK, Japan and indeed China – would retaliate by imposing higher tariffs of their own, and we would be in a trade war, one that could escalate higher and higher.
The wider such a trade war became – i.e., taking in more countries – the likelier it would be to make deglobalisation visible in the trade statistics. Nonetheless, we should bear one other thing in mind: this is that services, especially digitally delivered services, have become an increasingly important component of global commerce. How they would be affected is unpredictable.
Third, we need to bring in the related and vitally important force of technology. Falling costs and increasing digital capabilities have been a big factor behind the growth of global commerce. The entry of artificial intelligence means that there is no likelihood of this technological force for cross-border commerce diminishing.
During the pandemic, the science and technology behind vaccine development, production and distribution were all global, even if geopolitics introduced some distortions. Moreover, the basic reason why the US stock market has been driven by the so-called “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks is that the market for all of them is global.
Geopolitics threatens, but as yet it does not decide. External trade policies at present divert, but only an escalatory trade war would be likely to have a major effect. Technology, however, remains the most powerful force in favour of continued globalisation.
The future of globalisation will be determined by the interplay of these three forces. There is no currently pre-determined destiny for globalisation. Many commentators over-play the influence of politics and under-play the role of technology. Extreme outcomes are possible, and need to be prepared for. But we must above all keep an open mind as to what the actual outcome will be…
We see deglobalization everywhere except in trade statistics: “The future of globalisation: a history,” from @bill_emmott and his excellent newsletter, Bill Emmott’s Global View .
(Image above: source)
* Paul Krugman
###
As we tackle trade, we might recall that it was on this date in 1178, about an hour after sunset, that five monks from Canterbury saw “the upper horn [of the Moon] split in two.” They reported their experience to the abbey’s chronicler, Gervase, continuing (as he reports) “From the midpoint of the division a flaming torch sprang up, spewing out, over a considerable distance, fire, hot coals and sparks. Meanwhile the body of the Moon which was below writhed, as it were in anxiety, and to put it in the words of those who reported it to me and saw it with their own eyes, the Moon throbbed like a wounded snake. Afterwards it resumed its proper state. This phenomenon was repeated a dozen times or more, the flame assuming various twisting shapes at random and then returning to normal. Then, after these transformations, the Moon from horn to horn, that is along its whole length, took on a blackish appearance.”
In 1976, a geologist suggested that this was consistent with the location and age of the 22-km lunar crater Giordano Bruno. However, such asteroid impact would have ejected debris causing an astonishing meteor shower, which was never reported. So, while that is plausible, it’s now considered more likely that the sighting of 1178 was an exploding meteor that just happened to line up with their view of the Moon.
“A time will come when men will stretch out their eyes. They should see planets like our Earth.”*…
Not long ago the search for extraterrestrials was considered laughable nonsense. Today, as Adam Frank explains, it’s serious and scientific…
Suddenly, everyone is talking about aliens. After decades on the cultural margins, the question of life in the Universe beyond Earth is having its day in the sun. The next big multibillion-dollar space telescope (the successor to the James Webb) will be tuned to search for signatures of alien life on alien planets and NASA has a robust, well-funded programme in astrobiology. Meanwhile, from breathless newspaper articles about unexplained navy pilot sightings to United States congressional testimony with wild claims of government programmes hiding crashed saucers, UFOs and UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena) seem to be making their own journey from the fringes.
What are we to make of these twin movements, the scientific search for life on one hand, and the endlessly murky waters of UFO/UAP claims on the other? Looking at history shows that these two very different approaches to the question of extraterrestrial life are, in fact, linked, but not in a good way. For decades, scientists wanting to think seriously about life in the Universe faced what’s been called the ‘giggle factor’, which was directly related to UFOs and their culture. More than once, the giggle factor came close to killing off the field known as SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Now, with new discoveries and new technologies making astrobiology a mainstream frontier of astrophysics, understanding this history has become important for anyone trying to understand what comes next. But for me, as a researcher in the field of technosignatures (signs of advanced alien tech) – the new face of SETI – getting past the giggle factor poses an existential challenge.
I am the principal investigator of NASA’s first ever grant to study signatures of intelligent life from distant exoplanets. My colleagues and I are tasked with developing a library of technosignatures or evidence of technology-wielding life forms on distant planets. Taking on that role has been the culmination of a lifetime fascination with the question of life and the Universe, a fascination that formed when I was a kid in the 1970s, drinking deep from the well of science fiction novels, UFO documentaries and Star Trek reruns. Early on, as a teenager reading both Carl Sagan and Erich von Däniken (the author of Chariots of the Gods), I had to figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff. This served as a kind of training ground for dealing with questions facing me and my colleagues about proper standards of evidence in astrobiology. It’s also why, as a public-facing scientist, I must work to understand how people not trained in science come to questions surrounding UFOs as aliens. That is what drove me, writing a recent popular-level account of astrobiology’s frontiers called The Little Book of Aliens (2023), to stare hard into the entangled history of UFOs, the scientific search for life beyond Earth, and the all-important question of standards of evidence…
[Frank explains the efforts underway, their history, and the rigor being applied in sifting for credible evidence…]
… With the giggle factor receding for the scientific search for life, where does that leave UFOs and UAPs? There, the waters remain muddied. It is a good thing that pilots feel they can report sightings without fear of reprisal as a matter of air safety and national defence. And an open, transparent and agnostic investigation of UAPs could offer a masterclass in how science goes about its business of knowing rather than just believing. In The Little Book of Aliens, I even explained how such an investigation might be conducted (the recent NASA UAP panel and the Galileo Project are exploring these kinds of options). But if my colleagues and I claimed we’d found life on another world, we’d be required to provide evidence that meets the highest scientific standards. While we should let future studies lead us where they may, there is simply no such evidence surrounding UFOs and UAPs that meets these standards today. In fact, at a recent hearing conducted by NASA’s UAP panel, it was revealed that government studies show only a small percentage of reported sightings failed to find a reasonable explanation. Many of the remaining cases did not have enough data to even begin an attempt at identification. The sky is simply not awash in unexplained phenomena.
In the end, what matters is that, after thousands of years of arguing over opinions about life in the Universe, our collective scientific efforts have taken us to the point where we can finally begin a true scientific study of the question. The next big space telescope NASA is planning will be called the Habitable Worlds Observatory. The name tells you all you need to know. We’re going all in on the search for life in the Universe because we finally have the capabilities to search for life in the Universe. The giggle factor is finally history.
How UFOs almost killed the search for life in the universe: “Alien life is no joke,” from @AdamFrank4 in @aeonmag.
For more on a related field, see Astrobiology (@carnegiescience)
Also apposite (and typically for him, both informative and very amusing): John Oliver on UFOs
* the foresightful Christopher Wren
###
As we look up, we might recall that it was on this date in 1930 that Pluto was announced to be the name chosen for the newly-discovered ninth planet (previously known as Planet X) by Roger Lowell Putnam, trustee of Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona, (and nephew of the late Percival Lowell who had established the observatory and initiated the search there for the ninth planet). Pluto had been located there on in February of that year at that institution by Clyde Tombaugh.
Putnam was quoted on the front page of the New York Times, saying, “We felt in making our choice of a name for Planet X, that the line of Roman gods for whom the other planets are named should not be broken, and we believe that Dr. Lowell, whose researches led directly to its discovery, would have felt the same way.” Pluto in mythology was the ruler of the underworld, regions of darkness. “P.L.” is also Lowell’s monogram.
While it’s still known as Pluto, in 2006 the International Astrophysical Union demoted it from a “planet” to a “dwarf planet.”
“Aurora had but newly chased the night, / And purpled o’er the sky with blushing light”*…
The solar storms of late have made for some compelling nighttime sky-gazing. But these geomagnetic storms can have serious consequences, for example power grid irregularities, degradation of high-frequency communications, GPS outages, and satellite navigation issues. To that lattermost, consider agriculture: a 2023 report by the US Department of Agriculture noted that more than 50 percent of corn, cotton, rice, sorghum, soybeans, and winter wheat are planted and harvested with “automated guidance.” These systems, on which farmers depend, especially in the mid-May planting season, have been compromised…
The powerful geomagnetic storm that cast the northern lights’ vivid colors across the Northern Hemisphere over the weekend also caused some navigational systems in tractors and other farming equipment to break down at the height of planting season, suppliers and farmers said…
Farm equipment suppliers had warned that the storm would result in disruptions. And on Saturday, Landmark Implement, which sells John Deere farming equipment across parts of the Midwest, said that the accuracy of some of its systems had been “extremely compromised” because of the event [as has the equipment of other manufacturers].
The company said in a statement that it was searching for a “tool to help predict this in the future so that we can attempt to give our customers an alert that this issue may be coming.” It described the storm as a “historic event” rather than something it would have to “continue to battle frequently.”
Terry Griffin, an associate professor in agricultural economics at Kansas State University, said that while infrequent, such storms still posed a threat to farming in the United States, where the majority of crops are planted using modern guidance systems.
“This was the first time we’ve had geomagnetic storms that were so strong, and we were reliant upon GPS,” he said, noting that among the worst times for a storm like this to occur was during the planting season, when precision is crucial. Alternative technologies, including systems that use machine vision and artificial intelligence, or a more localized navigation system that would not collapse in a solar storm, are being developed, Dr. Griffin added…
The Northern lights are beautiful, but their cause is playing havoc with agriculture: “Solar Storm Crashes GPS Systems Used by Some Farmers, Stalling Planting” (gift article) from @nytimes.
See also: “Solar Storm Knocks Out Farmers’ Tractor GPS Systems During Peak Planting Season.”
* John Dryden
###
As we ruminate on radiation, we might spare a thought for Williamina Fleming; she died on this date in 1911. An astronomer and scholar of stars like our Sun, she was hired by the director of the Harvard College Observatory to help in the photographic classification of stellar spectra. She helped develop a common designation system for stars and cataloged more than ten thousand stars, 59 gaseous nebulae, over 310 variable stars, and 10 novae and other astronomical phenomena. Among several career achievements that advanced astronomy, Fleming is noted for her discovery of the Horsehead Nebula in 1888.
“Men have become the tools of their tools”*…
Visionary philosopher Bernard Stiegler argued that it’s not our technology that makes humans special; rather, it’s our relationship with that technology. Bryan Norton explains…
It has become almost impossible to separate the effects of digital technologies from our everyday experiences. Reality is parsed through glowing screens, unending data feeds, biometric feedback loops, digital protheses and expanding networks that link our virtual selves to satellite arrays in geostationary orbit. Wristwatches interpret our physical condition by counting steps and heartbeats. Phones track how we spend our time online, map the geographic location of the places we visit and record our histories in digital archives. Social media platforms forge alliances and create new political possibilities. And vast wireless networks – connecting satellites, drones and ‘smart’ weapons – determine how the wars of our era are being waged. Our experiences of the world are soaked with digital technologies.
But for the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler, one of the earliest and foremost theorists of our digital age, understanding the world requires us to move beyond the standard view of technology. Stiegler believed that technology is not just about the effects of digital tools and the ways that they impact our lives. It is not just about how devices are created and wielded by powerful organisations, nation-states or individuals. Our relationship with technology is about something deeper and more fundamental. It is about technics.
According to Stiegler, technics – the making and use of technology, in the broadest sense – is what makes us human. Our unique way of existing in the world, as distinct from other species, is defined by the experiences and knowledge our tools make possible, whether that is a state-of-the-art brain-computer interface such as Neuralink, or a prehistoric flint axe used to clear a forest. But don’t be mistaken: ‘technics’ is not simply another word for ‘technology’. As Martin Heidegger wrote in his essay ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ (1954), which used the German term Technik instead of Technologie in the original title: the ‘essence of technology is by no means anything technological.’ This aligns with the history of the word: the etymology of ‘technics’ leads us back to something like the ancient Greek term for art – technē. The essence of technology, then, is not found in a device, such as the one you are using to read this essay. It is an open-ended creative process, a relationship with our tools and the world.
This is Stiegler’s legacy. Throughout his life, he took this idea of technics, first explored while he was imprisoned for armed robbery, further than anyone else. But his ideas have often been overlooked and misunderstood, even before he died in 2020. Today, they are more necessary than ever. How else can we learn to disentangle the effects of digital technologies from our everyday experiences? How else can we begin to grasp the history of our strange reality?…
[Norton unspools Stiegler’s remarkable life and the development of his thought…]
… Technology, for better or worse, affects every aspect of our lives. Our very sense of who we are is shaped and reshaped by the tools we have at our disposal. The problem, for Stiegler, is that when we pay too much attention to our tools, rather than how they are developed and deployed, we fail to understand our reality. We become trapped, merely describing the technological world on its own terms and making it even harder to untangle the effects of digital technologies and our everyday experiences. By encouraging us to pay closer attention to this world-making capacity, with its potential to harm and heal, Stiegler is showing us what else is possible. There are other ways of living, of being, of evolving. It is technics, not technology, that will give the future its new face…
Eminently worth reading in full: “Our tools shape our selves,” from @br_norton in @aeonmag.
Compare and contrast: Kevin Kelly‘s What Technology Wants
* Henry David Thoreau
###
As we own up, we might send phenomenological birthday greetings to Immanuel Kant; he was born on this date in 1724. One of the central figures of modern philosophy, Kant is remembered primarily for his efforts to unite reason with experience (e.g., Critique of Pure Reason [Kritik der reinen Vernunft], 1781), and for his work on ethics (e.g., Metaphysics of Morals [Die Metaphysik der Sitten], 1797) and aesthetics (e.g., Critique of Judgment [Kritik der Urteilskraft], 1790).
But Kant made important contributions to mathematics and astronomy. For example: his argument that mathematical truths are a form of synthetic a priori knowledge was cited by Einstein as an important early influence on his work. And his description of the Milky Way as a lens-shaped collection of stars that represented only one of many “island universes,” was later shown to be accurate by Herschel.
Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, at all times also as an end, and not only as a means.
You must be logged in to post a comment.