GreyMamba

Thinking Allowed … (under construction)

Thinking Allowed … (under construction)

Science

Probably by luck more than judgement, I've got a PhD in Astronomy and have had a lifelong interest in Physics. Like most Physicist I know it is the king of sciences, Biology being mere stamp collecting and chemistry cooking. Don't get us started on the softer 'sciences' like geography (colouring in) and … Actually, I've got a bit of a soft-spot for the biosciences. I did an MSc in bioinformatics (using advanced IT methodologies to work with, mostly, genetic data) and really enjoyed the 'wet' labs we IT people did. What's not to like about splicing DNA information into a bacteria and seeing the result! Must write something on CRISPR.

Anyway, This section will be about interesting science I've done or read about - probably mostly Physics and Astronomy but also good stuff from the other, lesser, sciences (joke).

So what exactly is science? Well I see it as a bit of an iterative process based on curiosity and creative thinking. Someone makes an observation of something and wonders why or what caused the observed phenomena (the trick here is to be curious - how many of us look at the blue sky and think: why is it blue and not green or purple?). We need to explain things though (being mildly rational creatures) - and this is where creativity comes in.

OK, so let's give it a go. Ummm ... how about 'the sky is blue because each morning hobgoblins climb ladders and paint it with unicorn tears collected the previous night by little tiny elves whilst the unicorns sleep'. Pretty ingenious and creative ehh? - and it might be true! Or how about 'the small particles floating in the atmosphere selectively scatter short wavelength (blue) light into our eyes'? Not so much - but I suppose that just about could be true also.

Here's were the scientific method comes in. It goes something (forgive me Francis Bacon) something like this:

  1. Observe a phenomenon.
  2. Think up an explanation (hypothesis)
  3. Use this to predict some further phenomenon.
  4. Go and look for it.
  5. If we don't see it then the explanation must be wrong - go back to 2.
  6. If we do see it - great - use it to predict further phenomena and go an look for them. If we keep confirming the predictions then we might have hit on a pretty good explanation. Let's call this a theory.

This process has served us well and we have some pretty good explanations of how the Universe ticks. BUT NOTE - we can never prove a theory is right - only that it's wrong. And that's the problem with scientists - they'll never tell you that they're 100% sure of anything (other than a hypothesis must be wrong). But Quantum, Einstein's and Darwin's various theories' predictions have been tested so many times now without being disproved that we're pretty sure they're close to an accurate description of 'the truth'.

Let's give it a go with our competing blue sky theories.

What happens if we look towards the sun as it's setting - i.e. through a large 'path length' of atmosphere.

  • Hobgoblin hypothesis: Sky should still be blue - in fact perhaps a stronger blue because there is so much atmosphere.
  • Scattering hypothesis. By the time the light gets to us most of the blue should be scattered away so the sky will look reddish.

Let's see now, sunsets are orange/red/pink. Bugger, looks like the Unicorns can sleep unmolested. But the scattering idea rates a further look!

OK, pretty unfair and not really rigorous but I hope you get the point.
Scientific snippets

Life the Universe and everything

UGC 1810. A galaxy in a state of flux, probably interacting with a smaller neighbouring galaxy. Credits go to NASA, ESA, Hubble and HLA

How did we come to be here, right now, sitting comfortably in our bit of the Universe surrounded by everything we see? For the time being, and for the sake of argument (or rather lack of argument) let's forget about deities that just created everything and stick to the scientific story. I guess, for me at least, it's one of the more amazing and awe inspiring things about being human - we're just an ape-like entity, existing on a rocky ball circling about an un-pretentious star in an unremarkable part of space and time and yet by intellectual and logical effort alone we have developed solid ideas that take us back nearly 14 Billion years (14 followed by 9 zeros) to within \\(10^{-40}\\) seconds or so (1 divided by 1 followed by 40 zeros) of the start of our Universe. OK, there are still plenty of questions, discussion and argument but our current theories really do describe and predict an awful lot of measurements we have made. So let's start at the begining and follow it through.


In the beginning there was the Big Bang where everything (including time itself - probably) started. Think on that - there wasn't anything 'before' this. Not 'empty space' (space didn't exist) nor time - there really was NOTHING. Why do we think this is the case? well it's based on simple observation. When we look out into the Universe we can see that everything (well everything that isn't pretty local) is flying apart from everything else - the Universe is expanding. For a time in the 20th century there were a couple of good candidate hypothesis to explain this strange fact. The first was that matter was being continuously created slowly but everywhere by space itself - not much but the shear vastness of the Universe volume meant that this process produced a steady expansion. The second was the Big Bang. This came from the idea that if everything is expanding away from everything else, then if you run time backward it must mean that at some time in the past everything will come together into a single, infinitesimally small 'point' from which (if we run time forward again) everything 'explodes' from. Both hypotheses 'worked' but made subtly different predictions about what we should 'see' by looking deep into space. Both theories thought some kind of microwave radiation might be observed but only the BB theory predicted that we should see very cold Black Body radiation. In 1964 a number of observations were made but the most famous ones were by a couple of Bell Telephone Laboratory employees, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson. They were carrying out experiments to do with satellite communications and radio astronomy but couldn't get rid of an annoying background signal. It was soon realised that this wan't just a rubbish receiver but was in fact a real signal from space. Further work showed that it did, in-fact, follow the spectral 'shape' of black body radiation at a temperature of around 3 or 4 degrees Kelvin (above absolute zero). So, Steady State was out, and Big Bang was in! Penzias and Wilson duly got their Nobel prize.

So, now let's look at what we think happened - from time=0 when the 'Bang' happened.

  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    \(0 \Rightarrow 10^{-36}\) seconds

    Planck era. Quantum Gravity - dragons be here. Everything is enormously hot (\(>10^{32} K\))
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    \(10^{-36}\) seconds

    Still hugely hot - All the forces we know about - electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravity are indistinguishable.
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    \(10^{-32}\) seconds

    Inflation (flatness, homogeneity). Space itself (remember it's only just been created and is still quite small) expands by something like \(10^{26}\) times in a small fraction of a second (\(10^{-32}s\)). This cools things down a bit to around \(10^{22} K\) which allows the strong nuclear forces to become separate from a combined or (electroweak) electromagnetic/weak force. I'll probably write something on why we think this must have happened at another time.
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    \(10^{-12} \Rightarrow 10^{-6}\) seconds

    Forces are now separate but energies are so high that things like Quarks are free and can't form Protons, Neutrons etc. We're down to about \(10^{12} K\).
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    \(10^{-6} \Rightarrow 1 \) seconds

    Hadrons (protons, Neutrons etc.) form - both ordinary and anti-matter versions. You might expect these all to annihilate each other but for some reason (not yet really known) there is a slight ordinary matter excess (luck for us!). Neutrinos stop interacting with anything much. (10ly)
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    \(10 \Rightarrow 10^3\) seconds

    Protons and Neutrons can begin to form simple nuclei (almost entirely H {75%} , He {25%} with a very small bit of Li and other stuff), But still most of the energy is in E.M. radiation which is in thermal equilibrium with this matter. The result is that E.M. radiation (light) really can't travel far without interacting with something - the Universe is opaque. (300ly).
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    10 seconds \( \Rightarrow\) 380,000 years

    Still mostly photons interacting with electrons, protons and some nuclei
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    around 380,000 years

    Atoms begin to form - photons stop being in thermal equilibrium with matter and can therefore travel much further without interaction and the Universe becomes transparent.
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    3,000 \( \Rightarrow \) 150 million years

    Not much actual visible 'light' generation (ionised H). Existing photons red-shifted to infra-red and beyond - the Universe goes 'dark'.
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    150 million \( \Rightarrow \) 1 billion years

    Stars begin to form
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    1 billion years - Now

    Galaxies and galactic clusters form.
  • 11/02/1979 12:00

    13.8 billion years

    Amazingly, here I am writing this! For the record, the diameter of the OBSERVABLE Universe is around 93 billion light years (\(8.3x10^{23} km/), but it's almost certainly much bigger than that - it's just that the light from further away just hasn't got here yet). This volume contains somewhere around 200 billion galaxies (maybe more) and each of these, on average, will contain over 100 billion stars .. and here I am sitting at my computer around 150 kilometres from just one of them. It's all a bit humbling really … now, who's going to win Masterchef?

But, but … You might ask some questions around about now (13.8ish billion years after the start of time):

  1. How do we know; what 'proof' do we have that something as bizarre as 'inflation' took place?
  2. Why was more matter synthesised than anti-matter?
  3. As nuclei formed, only H, He and Li were synthesised (to all intents and purposes at least). Where did all the other stuff (arguably 98 naturally occuring elements) come from?

I'll do something on this at another time - well 1 and 3 possibly but I'm not sure 2 has been answered anywhere yet.

Back

Apples in Herefordshire. Apples ... Newton ... Scientce ....... geddit?

RapidWeaver Icon

Made in RapidWeaver