Whenever I give a presentation to the general public, there’s one type of question I always get. Why should we spend money on this stuff? What good does it do? What about people who are starving in this country? What’s in it for me? The answer they’re looking for is typically an argument that this science will lead to something tangible. A better cell phone, draught resistant wheat, self-driving cars. But those kinds of breakthroughs typically come from targeted research, not pure science. The goal of studying gas clouds in distant solar systems is not better cell phones, but a deeper understanding of the cosmos. How could that possibly affect you on a personal level? It affects you in lots of subtle ways, such as increasing political stability in the world. 

The space race began as a fierce rivalry between the two superpowers of the Cold War. After the Soviet triumph of sending the first human into space, the Americans sent 12 men to the Moon. But while tensions between the two countries remained high, there was a growing understanding that collaborative space exploration would benefit both sides. By 1975 the two countries worked together to achieve the first international docking between a Soviet and American spacecraft. This collaboration continues to this day. The International Space Station, for example, involves countries all over the world, and Russian spacecraft regularly ferry American astronauts to and from the station. But why would two diametrically opposed countries collaborate on an expensive science project? One big reason was that it kept political lines open. The US and Russia were still political rivals, but they weren’t politically isolated. Through the space program they developed ways to work together, and this may have played a role in limiting escalation. No one wanted to see another Cuban missile crisis.

The famous 1975 handshake between Russian cosmonaut Aleksey Leonov and US astronaut Tom Stafford. Credit: NASA

There is a political impact to any large science project. I saw this first hand when I visited the Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALMA) in northern Chile. Chile is one of the strongest economies in South America, but it is largely a resource economy. Logging and mining exports are its economic pillars, and they are limited resources. So Chile would like to expand other areas such as finance, tourism and technology. ALMA is part of that plan. Part of the agreement for ALMA is that Chile has an active role in its operation and research. Some of the components for ALMA must be built in Chile, which helps strengthen its tech manufacturing sector. The benefit for the US is that Chile picks up some of the cost for ALMA, and it strengthens political and economic ties with Chile.

Big science projects are necessarily collaborative international ventures. In doing them we not only gain scientific knowledge, we learn how to work together politically and economically. And that’s a big benefit.

The post What’s In It For Me? appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

America will experience a total eclipse this month. Even if you aren’t in the path of totality on August 21, you will experience a partial eclipse, where the Moon blocks some portion of the Sun. Millions of Americans will be tempted to look up at the eclipse, which violates one of the most basic rules of astronomy: Do NOT look directly at the Sun. This rule always applies, even during a partial eclipse when the Sun looks like a crescent. You can permanently damage your eyes, so don’t do it. Fortunately, there are special eclipse glasses you can get that allow you to watch the eclipse without harming your eyes. Unfortunately, some eclipse glasses aren’t safe to use, so you shouldn’t use any eclipse glasses that haven’t been verified as safe. 

The danger of looking at the Sun is partly due to its extreme brightness, but it’s mainly due to two things you can’t see. Infrared and ultraviolet radiation. Infrared light is the type we feel as heat, such as the warmth that radiates from a campfire. If you stare at the Sun too long, its infrared light can overheat your retinas and damage them. Ultraviolet light is what gives us sunburns. Just as our skin can become damaged due to UV exposure, so can our eyes. If you’ve ever experienced a sunburn, you’ve noticed that you aren’t aware of the burn until its too late. The same is true with damage to your eyes. You might not notice a problem until you have already damaged your eyes.

My opinion of those who make and sell fake eclipse glasses.

Eclipse glasses are designed to block the harmful infrared and ultraviolet light from the Sun. The latest manufacturing standard, ISO 12312-2, allows you to view the Sun safely for extended periods of time. You should still make sure you have sunscreen on your face, but proper eclipse glasses will make sure you won’t harm your eyes. Unfortunately, demand for eclipse glasses means some folks are selling eclipse glasses that aren’t safe. They don’t block enough UV and infrared to be safe. Some of these fake glasses even claim to meet the ISO 12312-2 standard. It takes a special kind of evil to risk blinding children for a quick buck. Unfortunately his means you can’t simply trust glasses with the ISO standard printed on them.

The only way to be sure your glasses are safe is to confirm the source of the eclipse glasses. The American Astronomical Society has compiled a list of manufacturers verified to be in compliance with the ISO standard, as well as a list of vendors that only sell from verified sources. If your glasses came from this list, then you should be good to go.

https://eclipse.aas.org/resources/solar-filters

Libraries and science museums are also a big source of eclipse glasses. In many cases they are giving them away for free, particularly to folks who can’t afford them. If you got a pair from a library or science museum, they are almost certainly fine. If you aren’t sure, just contact them to confirm the source. The biggest danger is if you purchased them online from a source not listed on the AAS resource page. They might be fine, but it’s hard to be sure. It’s better to be safe than sorry.

Use caution when viewing the eclipse. Credit: Rick Fienberg / TravelQuest International / Wilderness Travel

Once you have good eclipse glasses, proper safety is still important. Make sure that the glasses are not damaged or scratched, and don’t look towards the Sun unless your eclipse glasses are firmly in place. Make sure your children know the safety rules, and keep your eye on them while they view the eclipse. During the period of totality, you can look at the eclipse without glasses, but only when the Moon completely blocks the Sun.

If you don’t have eclipse glasses on August 21, don’t try using a substitute. Sunglasses are not enough. Welding visors are not enough. Don’t risk your eyes using them. Instead, build yourself a pinhole camera. They are simple to make, and you can watch the eclipse without ever risking your eyes.

The post How To Tell If Your Solar Eclipse Glasses Are Safe appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

I got a book in the mail this week. If you’re a scientist or science teacher, you might have too. This Spring the Heartland Institute mailed more than 300,000 of them to K-12 science teachers and university professors. At a retail price of $6.95, that’s more than $2 million worth of books. You can find a PDF copy on the Heartland Institute website. This book has outraged many scientists who see it as an attack on the established science of global climate change. As a scientist myself, I want you to read it. 

I want you to read it, but more importantly I want you to think about it. And I hope you’ll come back to read my thoughts on it as well. Whether you think climate change is real or not, this book is now in the center of the debate. It was written by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which is an international group of scientists with the purpose of providing a “second opinion” to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established by the United Nations. The IPCC has produced similar reports, and you can find their latest one on their website. Ideally you will read both, but I’m going to focus on the NIPCC report, since it represents the counter-argument to “established science.”

Before we go through this book, I want to be clear about a few points:

1. I will work under the assumption that the members of NIPCC are both qualified and working in earnest.
2. I will focus on the evidence presented and how it is presented.
3. I will not argue that climate change is real or false.

For the sake of open disclosure, I personally think human-driven climate change is real. My employer does not require me to hold that view, and I get no monetary support from any climate related group.

So let’s begin. I want to start with the first paragraph of the forward by Marita Noon:

President Barack Obama and his followers have repeatedly declared that climate change is “the greatest threat facing mankind.” This, while ISIS is beheading innocent people, displacing millions from their homeland, and engaging in global acts of mass murder.

I love this opening. It’s a wonderful example of an approach known as framing. Framing is a way to present an argument on your home turf. If you dislike Obama, then climate change is tainted by his connection. The paragraph primes you to be skeptical of the idea. To be clear, the paragraph is completely true. Obama has called climate change the greatest threat facing us. ISIS is doing horrible things to innocent people. Connecting the two in the same paragraph is the frame.

Let me give you another one. This is how I could have opened this post:

Fred Singer once claimed aliens could have built the largest moon of Mars. Now he wants you to believe climate change is a lie.

Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the authors of this book. He did once claim aliens could have built a Martian moon. It’s an interesting story, actually. Mars has two moons, Deimos and Phobos. They are both the size of small asteroids, but Phobos orbits very close to Mars. It’s orbit is also decaying. This was noticed back the the 1950s and 1960s, and it was thought to be due to atmospheric drag from Mars’ atmosphere. Russian astrophysicist Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky argued that it could be a hollow metal shell, which would imply it was artificially made. At the time Dr. Singer was science advisor to President Eisenhower. In 1960 he wrote “…there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore Martian made.” True story!

To be honest, the full quote is more telling:

If the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore Martian made. The big ‘if’ lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them.

In other words, the data gathered at the time pointed to a hollow Phobos. But Singer also noted that there could be errors in the data. We should accept the data even when it leads to a seemingly crazy conclusion, but we should be cautious not to jump to conclusions too quickly. Spoken like a true scientist. And it turns out Singer was right. There were errors in the data, and Phobos isn’t hollow. My initial paragraph painted Singer as crazy, while the full story shows Dr. Singer is a notable and reasoned scientist. Both are true, but only the latter is honest.

Framing is often more subtle, and it isn’t always meant to deceive. If you go back and read the first paragraph of this post, you may notice how it was framed. I portrayed myself as a simple honest guy, while noting that the Heartland Institute has spent lots of money. I stated how scientists are outraged. You may think scientists are biased, but I’m different. I have an open mind, and you can trust me. The premise I hope you accept is that I’m presenting an unbiased view.

The great thing about framing is that when you see it, you know the position of the author. By being aware of it, you can also distinguish between an emotional appeal and one based upon evidence. Being emotional doesn’t make an argument wrong, but it doesn’t make the argument stronger or right. An emotional plea strives to make an argument more compelling, whether it’s supported by evidence or not. We’re emotional creatures, and emotions are compelling. We love to have our views confirmed, and that makes it difficult to be open to opposing views. But we can strive to focus on evidence, and that’s necessary if we want to move closer to the truth.

So for your first assignment, I want you read the book with an eye for framing and emotional appeals. When you feel an emotional tug, positive or negative, look at the way ideas are presented. What has fed your emotions? Is one view called a “pet theory” while the other is “insightful?” Are the qualifications of scientists on one side outlined in detail while the qualifications of opposition scientists minimized or ignored? I don’t care whether you agree or disagree with a particular argument, I just want you to see how it is presented. Agree with it and see the emotional frame? Mark it. Disagree and see it as mere emotion? Mark it. Find all the framing and emotional arguments you can. Do the same for the IPCC report if you read it as well. In the end the evidence will support one side or the other. But to look at the evidence we first have to separate reason from emotion. Otherwise we’ll simply fall prey to a convenient truth.

Next time: 97% of scientists think that climate change is real. Or do they? We’ll look at the facts next time.

The post A Convenient Truth appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

It’s winter in the northern hemisphere. That fact, combined with the arctic blast that’s reddening many cheeks in North America, means that many of us will enjoy a white Christmas. Since it’s a time to be thankful, here’s five reasons you should thank astrophysics for this year’s Winter wonderland. 

1. Axial Tilt
   Earth’s axis is tilted about 23 degrees relative to its orbital plane. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun for about half the year, and tilted away from the Sun for half the year. When it’s tilted away from the Sun, the sunlight that reaches us is at a lower angle, meaning there’s less energy and heat reaching the Earth’s surface. That, combined with the fact that the Sun is visible for fewer hours in the day means the northern hemisphere enters a period of cold winter. Of course, for the southern hemisphere it’s reversed, meaning it’s a summer Christmas for those down under.
2. Elemental Abundance
   The most abundant element in the Universe is hydrogen, making up about 74% of cosmic matter by mass. Helium comes in second, making up about 24%. These two elements are so common because they were the elements formed soon after the big bang. Other elements of the periodic table are formed through astrophysical processes such as fusion in the heart of a star. This is true of the third most common element, oxygen, which makes up only 1% of the elemental mass in our galaxy. Helium is a noble gas, and doesn’t combine with other elements to form molecules, which leaves only hydrogen and oxygen. One of the most readily formed molecules from these two elements is H₂O, which is the primary ingredient of snow. Water is so common in the Universe because it’s formed from the two most common molecule-forming elements.
3. Heavy Bombardment
   Although water is common, it can evaporate away from a small, warm planet that forms close to its star. This is why Venus and Mars are so dry. We often think of Earth as a watery world, but it actually has less water than many moons of the outer solar system. We’re still not entirely sure how Earth came to have much more water than its planetary cousins, but one popular idea is that water was brought to Earth by asteroids and comets that bombarded our world during its youth.
4. Dalton Solar Minimum
   When you think of the winter season, you might think of Charles Dickens, whose stories such as A Christmas Carol have become a holiday staple. Dickens often wrote of a wintery Britain covered in snow, which may have helped drive the nostalgia we have for a snowy holiday. But interestingly, Britain doesn’t often have a snow-covered Christmas. In the 1900s, it was a white Christmas only seven times. But things were very different in the early 1800s, when Dickens was a child. Six of his first nine Christmas holidays were snowy. This period also corresponds to the Dalton solar minimum, which is a period between 1796 to 1820 when sunspot activity was unusually low. There’s some evidence to show that solar minima are correlated with colder temperatures on Earth. For example, the Maunder minimum spanning 1645 to 1715 is associated with the “little ice age” of Europe. It might just be a coincidence, but sunspot activity could be the source of Dickens’ holiday nostalgia.
5. Global Warming
   Although it is more properly called global climate change, the warming of Earth in recent decades could be the reason why it’s so cold in the northeast. It might seem paradoxical, but our cold temperatures are caused by the polar vortex dipping farther into North America than it usually does. The polar vortex is bounded by the jet stream, which typically moves in a smooth circle around the Earth. In recent years the jet stream has had a more wavy flow, and this may be driven by record warm temperatures at the north pole. As the arctic ice continues to melt and polar temperatures rise, the polar vortex can be pushed southward more often. It’s too soon to tell if this shift in the polar vortex is driven by climate change, but it is a possibility.

So there you have it. But whether your solstice holiday is wintery white or summery green, I wish you a joyful and peaceful season.

The post Winter Wonderland appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

It’s flu shot season, which means an annual popup of anti-vax memes in my social media feeds. Most of the memes this year are of the “OMG! The flu shot contains mercury!” variety. While it’s true that some versions of the flu vaccine do contain trace amounts of mercury, such a statement is largely meaningless. 

Thimerosal, the organic compound used as a preservative in some vaccines, breaks down in the body into ethyl mercury. Since our bodies can remove ethyl mercury from our bodies, it doesn’t bioaccumulate. This is very different from methyl mercury, found in trace amounts in certain fish like tuna. Methyl mercury is hard for our bodies to remove, and can bioaccumulate. It’s the buildup of mercury over time that can be dangerous, which is why the FDA recommends limiting consumption of certain varieties of fish. While both compounds contain mercury, the two molecules are structurally different and behave differently in our bodies. It’s similar to the difference between ethyl alcohol and methyl alcohol. The former is found in beer and wine and used as a social lubricant, while the latter is used in things like antifreeze and is highly toxic. Simply stating some vaccines contain mercury is like saying “OMG! Beer contains antifreeze!”

The glossing over of these kinds of details is depressingly common in popular science writing. For example, a while back there were posts about how there is evidence of life found in some meteorites, supporting the idea that life came from outer space. What was actually found was that some meteorites, such as the Murchison meteorite, contain more than 70 types of amino acids, which are sometimes referred to as the building blocks of life. Since the fall of the Murchison meteorite was observed, and the meteorite was recovered soon after it reached Earth, we can be confident that those amino acids are not due to terrestrial contamination. It’s in the details, however, where things get interesting.

Chiral molecules come in left-handed and right-handed versions. Credit: Wikipedia

Amino acids are chiral molecules. This means they come in two different forms that are mirror images of each other. Each type of amino acid has a left handed and right handed version. Terrestrial organisms mainly use left-handed proteins (of which amino acids are the building blocks) and right-handed sugars. The amino acids on the Murchison meteorite were found to be roughly equal parts left and right handed. This means they were likely produced by a nonbiological process. We know from other studies that complex molecules can form in deep space. So the Murchison meteorite actually contradicts the idea that terrestrial life began in space. Cosmic amino acids may have played a role, but likely some mechanism on Earth gave rise to the handedness of biology we see today.

Often in science it’s the smallest of details that make all the difference. Some evidence can’t be reduced to a catchy headline, and doing so can often lead to headlines that are downright misleading.

The post Vaccines, Meteors, And Why Details Matter appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

Physical theories are often presented as a description of what’s really going on. Forces act on a baseball, causing it to fall. Atoms collide and fuse in the heart of a star, releasing heat and energy. Science is true, as is often said, and our scientific theories encapsulate this truth. But this isn’t entirely true. 

The probability distributions for hydrogen in different energy states.

For example, quantum mechanics is a strange, sometimes confusing theory. Objects can be particles and waves. They do strange things like tunnel through barriers, and can even appear and disappear.  Given all this strangeness, what’s really going on? What’s the true nature of quantum reality? It depends on which approach you want to take. In one view quantum objects are described by a wave-like probability function. When you interact with or “observe” the object this “wavefunction” collapses into a definite state. That’s view commonly presented, but a quantum system can also be described by its transitions between energy states. Since this uses a mathematical method involving matrices, it’s known as matrix mechanics. Both wavefunctions and matrix mechanics give the same results, but their view of what really goes on is very different. Then there’s the path integral method. Rather than a wavefunction or matrix transitions, path integrals imagine quantum objects can take almost any path between two states. By summing all the possible paths you can derive the odds that it will occur.

The matrix transition version of quantum theory doesn’t care about the wavefunction.

So which one is true? Are quantum objects distributed waves of probability? Are they simply transitions between energy states? Do they take an infinite number of paths between states? Each of these models make the same predictions, so one version is no more “true” than the others. What happens in practice is that we’ll use whatever method is useful at the time. They are equivalent models, so the best model for the job is the one we’ll use. The only reason the wavefunction view is so common is that it’s the version usually taught to introductory students.

You might think this uncertainty of truth is due to the behavior of quantum physics itself. It’s so strange and counterintuitive that we can’t wrap our puny brains around what’s really going on. But the same thing occurs in lots of other fields. Even something as straight forward as basic Newtonian physics.

In the path integral view many potential paths are summed.

Toss a baseball in the air and Earth’s gravitational force pulls it down. The force of gravity is a simple truth, right? While we often describe classical motion in terms of forces and acceleration, we can also describe it in terms of energy and momentum. In the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approach, the path of a baseball is the optimized path among possibilities. In this view a baseball’s path is the extrema of an energy equation, and force can be derived as a necessary consequence of this. In the relativistic view the baseball follows a geodesic, which is the minimal path through space and time. So is a baseball’s motion due to a gravitational force, an energy extrema, or a spacetime geodesic? As with quantum theory, different approaches yield the same result. They are mathematically equivalent, so we can use whatever method is most useful at the time.

At its core, science is less about truth and more about models. The metaphysics underlying a model is useful only as far as it allows us to make better predictions, generate new ideas, or bring models together as a cohesive whole. This is why we have no problem using classical gravity to calculate the path of a spacecraft through the solar system, while using special relativity to account for the Doppler shift of the spacecraft’s radio signals. It’s why we can use quantum physics to study atoms in the morning, and general relativity to study black holes in the afternoon. In regimes where models conflict with each other it isn’t a failure of truth, but instead shows an opportunity to develop a better model.

It could be that with each better model we move closer to the truth about reality. The truth is out there, and science strives to move towards that truth. It’s a common view, and certainly the search for truth has driven many scientists to develop better and better models. But the real power of science is the recognition that what we have are models. Our models can be powerful, but they are always a bit tentative. There’s always a chance that they might just be an illusion of truth.

The post The Illusion Of Truth appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

Elon Musk thinks we probably live in a virtual universe. Meanwhile scientist have shown that wormholes can be traversed by spacecraft. Perhaps they’re used by nearly a trillion alien civilizations that live in our cosmos. 

At its core, science focuses on evidence. Models are tested against the evidence we have, so that over time a confluence of evidence allows us to refine scientific theories into something that’s reliable and predictive. There’s always a chance that a newer, better theory will replace an older one, but our focus on evidence keeps us from straying into wild speculation.

That doesn’t mean we can’t sometimes speculate about what might or might not be. Exploring “what if” models can be a great way to push back against the assumptions of a model. Debates about metaphysics and the philosophy of science can help keep us honest about the limits of a theory’s power. While these speculations aren’t necessarily science, they play a role in the scientific process. Unfortunately there is often confusion in popular media about the difference between what might be and what is.

Take, for example, the idea that we live in a virtual universe. The basic argument is that if it’s likely that civilizations far more advanced than ours can arise in the universe, and they have a good chance of simulating aspects of their past, then odds are we are living in a simulated world. Statistically its more likely that we are a simulation of pre-singularity humans than actually living in that rare time period. The argument is a philosophical exploration about the limits of what we can know, and has a long history tracing back to descartes’ demon and Plato’s cave. The often-referenced work by Nick Bostrom doesn’t claim we are living in a virtual world, but rather argues we can’t simply discard the idea out of hand.

Then there’s the idea that wormholes might be traversable. Wormholes are a hypothetical idea that has been studied for decades, including how they might be traversed. The latest work on the idea focuses not on spaceship travel, but on how microscopic wormholes might allow elementary particles through. It’s a mathematical study of the limits of general relativity. It’s less about proving wormholes real and more about pushing an established model until it breaks to see how it works.

But what about alien civilizations? Have we finally proved they’re out there? No, the latest paper on alien civilizations is a study of the observational constraints on alien civilizations. We now have a good handle of just how many potentially habitable planets there are in the Universe, at least on a broad order of magnitude. They’re extraordinarily common, and that means there could be trillions of alien civilizations out there. There could also be no civilizations other than ours. It really comes down to how rare the formation of life on a world actually is. Even if civilizations are common, it’s quite likely that we simply won’t meet up with them.

While each of these ideas might be true, there currently isn’t evidence to support them. They may lead us to new ways of seeing the Universe, or they may just end up a false, but cool, story.

Paper: Nick Bostrom. Are You Living In A Computer Simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255 (2003) DOI: 10.1111/1467-9213.00309

Paper: Gonzalo J Olmo, et al. Impact of curvature divergences on physical observers in a wormhole space–time with horizons. Classical and Quantum Gravity, Vol 33, No 11 (2016) DOI:10.1088/0264-9381/33/11/115007

Paper: A. Frank and W.T. Sullivan III. A New Empirical Constraint on the Prevalence of Technological Species in the Universe. Astrobiology, Vol 16, No 5 (2016) DOI: 10.1089/ast.2015.1418

The post Cool Story, Bro appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

This morning I woke to find a request in my email. A journalist was writing a story on new research and wanted me to comment on what pitfalls there might be in the model. It seemed like a pretty standard request, but I was wrong. 

To begin with, the journalist didn’t give me a link to the research paper, they gave me a link to a popular article from a competing website asking whether black holes were actually holograms. The article tried to explain mind-blowing ideas about higher dimensions, and even featured a video clip where Matthew Mcconaughey explains M-theory in True Detective.

It’s too early for this. I haven’t even had a morning cuppa.

Okay, so I pour myself a cup and settle in to the task of tracking down the actual paper. A couple of Google searches later I have the actual paper (behind a paywall, natch) and start reading. Of course it uses the holographic principle, which is a mathematical technique that involves making journalists confuse it with “is a hologram.”

It turns out the article is interesting, but has very little to do with the holographic principle. It’s actually a study of how quantum and classical descriptions of thermodynamics can give the same entropy results for black holes. Not a radical idea, nor some hologram heresy, but solid work towards bring together quantum theory with gravity. At this point I’ve already spent two hours on it, which I could do today because I have the time, and the article was interesting enough that I might get a post out of it.

Time to reply to the journalist. While they were looking for a “this is interesting, but..” reply, what they got was a tearing apart of the popular article and a basic summary of what entropy and thermodynamics are, how they relate to black holes, what the holographic principle actually is, and what the research paper is actually about.

But here’s the thing: articles on “black holes are holograms” are already gathering page-view money, and the journalist who emailed me is under pressure to get an article out quickly. They might go through what I sent them and write a thoughtful rebuttal to the hologram hype, but that wouldn’t get nearly the pageviews that Matthew Mcconaughey will. It would be easier and more profitable to simply gather a quote from someone else. I may have just wasted a couple hours this morning, but I hope not.

The thing is, the journalist actually tried to do the right thing. Seeing some sensational article they tracked down someone who might understand it as a reality check, and that’s why I took the time to reply. But if they write a more accurate article as a result it will cost them money. That’s where we are at this point. In the pay per view economy science writers lose money by taking the time to get it right.

I’m not sure how to fix this problem, but maybe one way is to draw attention to good science writing. If you see a popular science article that took the time to get it right, think about writing their editor. Tell them you liked the article because of its clarity and accuracy, and that you’d like to see more science writing like this.

Maybe then news sites will understand that science journalism can be more than pay per view.

The post Pay Per View appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

On a calm November evening in 1988, the 300 foot radio telescope at Green Bank Observatory collapsed. While the collapse was a huge blow to radio astronomy, it is somewhat surprising that it lasted as long as it did. The radio telescope was proposed in 1960 as a way to fill the observational gap between earlier radio telescopes and telescope arrays such as the VLA, and was intended to operate for about five years. In a way it was meant to nurture success out of failure. 

The 140 foot telescope at Green Bank. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF

At the time, the major radio telescope under construction was Green Bank’s 140 foot telescope. This telescope was polar-aligned, and had a tracking mechanism that could follow objects as they moved across the sky. This would allow for high-precision observations of radio objects such as pulsars. Unfortunately the gearing necessary to move such a large telescope was plagued with flaws, and the construction of the telescope faced increasing delays and costs. While the 300-foot telescope was larger, it was also lighter and had limited mobility, making it cheaper and easier to build. It depended upon the rotation of the Earth to bring objects into its view for about 40 seconds before drifting out of range, but that was enough to make good observations of things like pulsar remnants. It was also able to make a survey of the radio sky at a higher precision than ever before. When the 140 foot telescope was finally completed in 1965, it was able to further these discoveries, and even made radio observations of complex molecules in space, opening the door to astrochemistry.

The Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Radio Telescope. Credit: NRAO/AUI

If the 140 foot telescope hadn’t faced delays, the 300 foot telescope would likely not have been constructed. What began as a stop-gap solution became a powerful telescope in its own right. Because it lasted much longer than its original design, astronomers came to depend upon it, upgrading the telescope over the years. That’s why its collapse was such a blow. But the radio telescope had more than proven its value, so in the years following its demise a new telescope was proposed. This would be only slightly larger than the 300 foot telescope, but would be fully steerable and capable of tracking objects through the sky. Basically it would combine the best features of the 3oo foot and 140 foot telescopes. It was completed in 2001, and came to be known as the  Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope. To this day it is the largest movable land structure on the planet. Of course it wouldn’t have been built if the 300 foot telescope hadn’t collapsed.

So one of the most powerful radio telescopes we have was built because of the structural failure of a telescope that was built because of the design problems of another telescope. It’s a classic example of how sometimes failure can lead to greater things, which is often what science is all about. Science is about pushing past boundaries, and often that means using a failure to move forward.

The post Win Some, Lose Some appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

There’s been a flurry of discussion about academic diversity recently. This time its about the lack of conservatives in universities, but it could just as easily be about gender, or ethnic and cultural backgrounds, or economic diversity. But why should we care about diversity at all? Isn’t science supposed to be a meritocracy? 

On some level science is a meritocracy. If we think of science as a competition of ideas and theories, then the best and most useful theory should (and usually does) come out on top. Even the most cherished and time-tested model is discarded if new evidence and new ideas leads to a better one. Our process of peer review is designed to filter out weak models and weak evidence. This merit-based approach has been wildly successful.

But while science strives to be fair and unbiased in its testing of ideas, the process is colored by the fact that scientists are human. We all approach the world with a perspective created by our personal experiences, and those experiences are deeply shaped by our socioeconomic, gender, racial and cultural heritage. No amount of scientific training will change that fact. While we can use scientific methods to filter the good scientific ideas from the bad, the origin of those ideas is still deeply dependent on the human equation. Quite simply, the wider we cast our net, the better science and all of us will be served.

Diversity is not a game.

Unfortunately much of the argument about diversity (pro and con) seems to treat diversity as a game of Pokemon, where the goal is to “catch ’em all.” People who are considered “diverse” are hired for their status, then pushed into the sidelines until they are needed for a Pokebattle. Suddenly a wild committee appears! Hispanic woman I choose you! When diversity is treated as a checkbox it is worse than useless. Not only do you not cast a wider net of perspectives and ideas, you reinforce the view that diversity is worthless. “We hired three racial minorities and they failed to succeed. Typical.”

In order for diversity to succeed we have to connect to a wider diversity of people and perspectives. We need to be challenged by ideas very different from our own, and we need to listen. While increasing the diversity of scientists can allow these kinds of connections to flourish, we should be careful not to focus on satisfying checkboxes. Instead we should focus on ways to build wider connections, and provide opportunities for people with a wide range of backgrounds to flourish. The more we do that, the better science will become in the long run.

It won’t be easy, and it won’t improve overnight. But over time we can learn to listen to new perspectives, to challenge them and have them challenge us. Because the human equation of science is complex, subtle and beautiful, if only we take the time to see it.

The post The Human Equation appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

Recently I wrote a post rather critical of the EmDrive, which supposedly defies the laws of physics. As a result I’ve gotten a flurry of emails criticizing me for being closed minded, or claiming that defending the status quo for financial gain. After all, Einstein overturned Newton, so perhaps I should show some humility and be open to new ideas. It’s a common accusation when I’m critical of the electric universe model and other fringe science. There is this view that scientists are like dogmatic clergyman who refuse to look into Galileo’s telescope. In reality, the reason we’re so critical of radical scientific ideas is that we’re actually looking for Narnia.

In C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Narnia is a magical land where animals talk. It is discovered when Lucy, the youngest of four children, discovers a gateway to Narnia in a magical wardrobe. Most of us would love to find a hidden magical world, but we have a pretty good understanding of how the world works, and it doesn’t involve wardrobes to other worlds. So when Lucy returns from Narnia to tell her siblings of her discovery, they naturally are skeptical. It’s far more likely that Lucy is playing a practical joke, or that her imagination has gotten the best of her. Of course eventually the other children enter Narnia as well, and Lucy is vindicated.

Deep down most scientists want to be like Lucy. We want a great discovery that overturns some established theory. The joy of discovery is what drives us, and sometimes we explore scientific wardrobes. We really do want to find Narnia. But it’s because we want it that we’re so critical of wild claims. We don’t want to fall prey to a childish prank. So when something like the EmDrive comes along we rip it to shreds. We point out all the ways it could be an error, and all the ways the engineers could be wrong. But we’re also hoping the EmDrive can overcome all those challenges. As long as the work listens to the evidence and responds to criticism, we’ll always be rooting for it.

We’re skeptical. We demand proof. But there’s a part of us that hopes Lucy will take us to Narnia after all.

The post Looking For Narnia appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

A new study looked at public opinion of scientists in the U.S. They found that while scientists are perceived as being honest, they are also seen as robotic and lacking emotion. From my own experience I can certainly understand why. 

Of all the characters in the Marvel universe, the one I most strongly see in myself is Bruce Banner. Talented, but shy and withdrawn, and always wary of his emotions, lest they let loose the Hulk within. I’m willing to bet I’m not the only scientist who feels this way. Feelings are understandable, but science requires evidence beyond personal experience. Upon the altar of science we place the cold equations, and let the data judge. We’re wary of fallible emotions lest they lead us away from objectivity. You can see this in scientific papers, and even in my own blog writing. Stick to the facts, and don’t let emotion show.

Of course there is a deep emotional component to my work.  I have stood under the Milky Way, moved to tears by its beauty. I’ve felt awe in the sublime elegance of a mathematical theory, and joy in scientific success. Some of the deepest emotional experiences I’ve had were fueled by scientific pursuits. It is those emotions that drive me to pursue science, not cold objectivity. Without an emotional impact I wouldn’t be a scientist. I’m just more comfortable when those emotions are hidden, partly due to my own personality and partly due to my scientific training. Even writing this post makes me a bit uncomfortable.

By hiding our emotional side, scientists not only promote the stereotype of being cold an amoral, they also lose a powerful tool. The power of the Hulk can create havoc, but it can also save the world. Likewise, our emotions can motivate us to do good. Rage at the social inequalities within our institutions, joy in the success of our colleagues, empathy to leave the world better than we found it. Emotions can push us beyond our comfort zone, and encourage us to improve our community. And by showing our emotional side we can better connect with the public, and make science more welcoming. We do a disservice to science when we perpetuate the robotic stereotype.

I don’t know that I’ll ever be comfortable expressing my emotions publicly, but in the future I’ll try to present more of them in my writing. Because the scientific community and society as a whole will be better off if occasionally we unleash the beast within.

Paper: Bastiaan T. Rutjens , Steven J. Heine. The Immoral Landscape? Scientists Are Associated with Violations of Morality. PLoS ONE 11(4): e0152798. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152798 (2016)

The post The Beast Within appeared first on One Universe at a Time.