Almost everyone who is interested enough to follow scientific developments is familiar with the good old “Black Hole” in space. This is what happens when massive stars collapse in on themselves and there’s nothing to stop it. Eventually all the mass gets crushed to infinite (or near infinite) density, creating a “Singularity.” This tiny point in spacetime exerts all the gravity of all the mass that became part of it, so their effects can be observed on other stars and matter near them.*

[* High energy physicists have suggested that singularities can come in much smaller 'mini' and 'micro' size, and are hoping to produce one at CERN if they ever get the Large Hadron Collider going.]

These black holes are said to be hidden behind an event horizon, where matter and energy being sucked in toward the singularity exceeds the speed of light. Beyond that boundary of spacetime, nothing within can ever get out again. Roger Penrose came up with the Cosmic Censorship hypothesis back in the ’70s when he and Stephen Hawking were formalizing the solutions to Einstein’s equations that predicted the existence of black holes. It seemed ‘indecent’ to Penrose that a singularity might ever exist that was not shielded from outside view by an event horizon, and that view predominated research for decades despite whispers here and there that naked singularities could indeed exist.

The axiom of cosmic censorship is that “Nature abhors a naked singularity.” Penrose complains that an indecent singularity would do some very strange things to time, making mincemeat of our notions of cause and effect. Three decades later theorists are not so sure. It was reported back in September of 2007 that…

Some Black Holes May Not Be Black – researchers from Duke University and Cambridge published in the journal Physical Review D their solutions to the equations of general relativity which predict the existence of naked singularities. Worse, they came up with some ways of testing the gravitational lensing and radiation emissions expected from such a phenomenon, that could soon be observed with current and new technology.

In the February issue of Scientific American, theorist Pankaj Joshi writes an informative 5 pages of explanation in the article -

Do Naked Singularities Break the Rules of Physics?

“If naked singularities exist, the implications would be enormous and would touch on nearly every aspect of astrophysics and fundamental physics. The lack of horizons could mean that mysterious processes occurring near the singularities would impinge on the outside world. Naked singularities might account for unexplained high-energy phenomena that astronomers have seen, and they might offer a laboratory to explore the fabric of spacetime on its finest scales.”

Some astrophysicists are probably dreading the implications, but it looks like an increasing number of others are quite excited about it as a way forward in their quest to understand the true nature of space and time and the behaviors of all things existing here. Joshi concludes his article with this enthusiasm…

“Either proving or disproving cosmic censorship would create a mini explosion of its own within physics, because naked singularities touch on so many deep aspects of current theories. What comes out unambiguously from the theoretical work so far is that censorship does not hold in an unqualified form, as it is sometimes taken to be. Singularities are clothed only if the conditions are suitable. The question remains whether these conditions could ever arise in nature. If they can, then physicists will surely come to love what they once feared.”

Links:

Wiki: Naked singularity
Do Naked Singularities Break the Rules of Physics?
Some Black Holes May Not Be Black

There have been some interesting events going on in our solar system since the turn of the new millennium, just coming up on being 8 years old (when counted as the New Year’s transition 2000 to 2001). And the most recent situation here on planet earth bodes ill for sunbathers and electronic communications.

Our sun (Old Sol) has a predictable 11-year cycle of magnetic pole-flipping – with accompanying sunspots and coronal mass ejections [CMEs] of high-energy ions. The most recent pole-flip occurred between 2000 (north pole) and 2002 (south pole). Our planet has also been known to flip its poles, but on a much longer period cycle that averages ~500,000 years. It’s been about 780,000 years since this last occurred, so it’s probably not too surprising that by 2004 scientists were noticing that our field was fading fast.

Back then scientists were fairly convinced that the process of field reversal takes hundreds or thousands of years to accomplish, so the panic level wasn’t high. Earth’s magnetic field produces a “magnetosphere” that shields the surface and lower atmosphere from incoming solar wind, CMEs and cosmic rays by directing them around the planet. Occasional solar radiation does break through and wreak temporary havoc to our electrical grids and communications technologies. And some birds, turtles and bees rely on the magnetic field of the earth in order to navigate.

In February of 2007 NASA launched five satellites collectively called THEMIS to study the earth’s magnetic field, and by May of that year rumors started appearing in the press that our field flip was imminent. That could present issues due to the likelihood that the magnetosphere may essentially disappear during the period of the flip, leaving the sunny side of the planet exposed and vulnerable. There are of course ample caveats in the scenarios for such an event, given the fact that modern humans have never actually experienced one. Obviously, there is good reason to keep an eye on the process, as 5 satellites aren’t cheap to invent and deploy just for the purpose…

Just this past week we have finally been informed by NASA that indeed, the five THEMIS satellites flew through a ‘hole’ in the magnetosphere’s sun-side bow wave just as it was opening on June 3 of 2007. The hole, NASA tells us, is now 10 times larger than any such hole previously believed to exist, 4 times wider than the diameter of the planet. NASA’s description of this newly released but known for more than a year news is… colorful:

The event began with little warning when a gentle gust of solar wind delivered a bundle of magnetic fields from the Sun to Earth. Like an octopus wrapping its tentacles around a big clam, solar magnetic fields draped themselves around the magnetosphere and cracked it open. The cracking was accomplished by means of a process called “magnetic reconnection.” High above the Earth’s poles, solar and terrestrial magnetic fields linked up (reconnected) to form conduits for solar wind. Conduits over the Arctic and Antarctic quickly expanded; within minutes they overlapped over Earth’s equator to create the biggest magnetic breach ever recorded by Earth-orbiting spacecraft.

Worse, what’s going on bears little to no resemblance to sciences theories about such things. In fact, what’s happening is completely opposite to predictions!

Bottom line for our ‘interesting times’? Stock up on sunscreen, back up your hard drive regularly…

The years ahead could be especially lively. Raeder explains: “We’re entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It’s the perfect sequence for a really big event.”

Links:
Sun does magnetic flip
Earth’s Magnetic Field is Fading Fast
A Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field

Researchers at the University of Bath in England, Imperial College London, and the University of Waterloo in Canada have analyzed the last 550 million years of evolution in the fossil record, and determined that the First ‘Rule’ of Evolution Suggests that Life is Destined to Become More Complex.

This may be news to evolutionary biologists and interested laity who were taught that evolution is solely a matter of random mutation and natural selection with no direction toward greater complexity. Dr. Matthew Wills from the University of Bath explained it thus…

“If you start with the simplest possible animal body, then there’s only one direction to evolve in – you have to become more complex. Sooner or later, however, you reach a level of complexity where it’s possible to go backwards and become simple again.”

But does this happen? Wills explains…

“What’s astonishing is that hardly any crustaceans have taken this backwards route. Instead, almost all branches have evolved in the same direction, becoming more complex in parallel. This is the nearest thing to a pervasive evolutionary rule that’s been found.”

They’re calling it Science Debate 2008. It’s a grassroots initiative to petition for a Presidential candidates forum specifically about issues of science and technology. The list of science bloggers in the Blogger Coalition is impressive, and represents almost all of Seed Media Group’s ScienceBlogs stable. The list of initial signers includes Nobel Prize laureates, academics, corporate CEOs, congresscritters, political science policy advisors, journal editors and regulatory agency veterans.

I heard about the initiative from Steven “DarkSyde” Andrew’s front page post announcing it over on Daily Kos on December 10th. He called for bipartisan and independent science bloggers to sign up, so I emailed the group through their form and offered my support. I didn’t get a reply and I’m not listed as a supporter, but I’m going to talk about it anyway.

Among the science bloggers who have already posted about the subject is a favorite of mine, “GrrlScientist” over at Living the Scientific Life. While I certainly agree with the description of why a science debate would be good – “intellectual stagnation in public policies” – I was not so impressed with Grrl’s complete rejection of sociopolitical realities in favor of current theoretical consensus in her particular field of science. She concludes:

“It is hoped that, by placing each candidate’s science and technology policies squarely into the public consciousness, the average American will realize that not “believing in” evolution unacceptable, that it constitutes intellectual dishonesty that is tantamount to not “believing in” gravity…”

Um… that sort of attitude isn’t going to fly in the national political arena, with candidates or with voters. Not that I don’t agree that public rejection of current theoretical consensus can interfere with necessary social and political policies that indeed are the responsibility of politicians to develop and implement. But politicians are not scientists and are not required or expected to be scientists. That’s what “science advisors” are for, along with the junior staffers who type up the position statements for candidates’ campaign websites.

That’s how it works for the politicians who get elected too. In the US, government is not a dictatorship of current scientific consensus. I do not believe it’s going to turn into one if scientists insist on displaying their arrogance on television while insulting the politicians, the voting public, and democratic political philosophy.

So I went over to Bora Zivkovic’s blog A Blog Around the Clock, because Zivkovic has so far posted 4 different questions he would ask candidates if this debate takes place. This can help us get a better feel for the issues that concern scientists as well as an idea of how such a debate would be conducted. Zivkovic’s first question is excellent:

“If elected President, what do you intend to do to make sure that you receive trustworthy scientific information and that your policies are based on the best available empirical knowledge about the world? What do you see as the primary role of the Presidential Science Advisor? In what way, if any, would you change the current federal framework of implementing science-related policy?”

It’s a good question because science is quite notorious for harboring opposing and highly contentious views in many disciplines and sub-disciplines. Simply following the science news for a few weeks will give you a general idea of how much incoming research “contradicts” other scientists’ older research, and answers to questions of detail change depending on who you’re asking today. If you care to follow the in-house debates, they’re as rancorous as anything politics can dish out (short of the notorious Hamilton-Burr duel or notable assassinations and impeachments).

Zivkovic’s second question concerns science funding:

“How would you address the current problems of scientific research in the USA – stopping the brain-drain, attracting foreign students, energizing young Americans to consider careers in science, and encouraging development of science in other countries (with free flow of information between nations as well as between scientists and the public in the USA) while still retaining the US dominance?”

Another good question. Not an easy one to answer, either. Looks to me like some work on science education needs to factor in here, particularly at the university level where a scientist gets out of grad school so far in student debt they’ll never dig out. Same problem is happening with doctors (and all other professions), so doing something about that would help everybody. As far as “US dominance” is concerned, that may not be something politicians can do much about. Seems that distinction is up to scientists and their institutions to preserve – if they can. Scientific knowledge is not something that can be held exclusive while at the same time encouraging a ‘free flow of information’.

Zivkovic asks about the complex issue of climate change in question 3, a subject bound to take up a lot of space at a science debate. Question 4 mentions science education and asks for a candidate’s position on who s/he will trust to be “the voice of true authority on a scientific question.”

I’d imagine the answer to that will be no different than it’s been for decades. The NAS panel overviews parsed by ‘expert’ hired science staff and filtered through the advisor to the politician. Perhaps this debate should be held with the candidates’ respective science advisors, who should at least know more about science than any of the politicians running for President.

I understand that most in the scientific community are upset at the Bush administration’s reliance on marginally capable, ideologically biased advisors who’s advice and operational tactics have led to some really awful science policies. But they couldn’t have accomplished that if science were absolute (as opposed to provisional) and there were no disagreements about evidence, interpretations or theoretics. What can politicians be expected to do about disagreements among scientists about science?

I’ll keep my eyes open for more science bloggers and other supporters weighing in with their own issues and concerns and questions. Maybe they can just choose the best questions and send the list to all the candidates well before the debate so their science advisors can come up with answers and the writers can draft responses. And so the candidates can practice their delivery in front of mirrors and focus groups so they won’t look like complete idiots.

If scientists want to play in the political arena – The Show – they should give a thought to its customs, formalities and rules before taking the stage. Otherwise I fear the program will turn out to be more sit-com than useful educational resource.

Links:

Science Debate 2008

ScienceBlogs

On November 29 the New York Times published an article about the European Space Agency’s Venus Express mission, highlighting findings from that mission that suggest Earth and Venus are “really twins which are just separated at birth.” Hmmm…

In New Findings Underscore an Earth-Venus Kinship, author Kenneth Chang cites scientists’ surprising findings that Venus experiences lightning, wide swings in temperature, and evidence that Venus once hosted oceans covering as much of the planet as Earth’s oceans do.

Eight different articles about findings from the mission were published in the 11-29 issue of the journal Nature. The scientists speculate that Venus’ oceans evaporated to form the water vapor canopy that shrouds the planet, trapping heat in the good old ‘greenhouse effect’ to cause surface temperatures approaching 900º F, yet the mission also found that the temperature varies as much as 70º F between day and night. Which must be quite a relief in a climate hot enough during the day to melt metals!

NASA’s Project Magellan extensively mapped the surface of Venus during the 1990s, finding far fewer surface craters than expected. According to some planetary scientists this indicates that Venus Is a New Planet, a whole lot younger than the ~4.5 billion years generally accepted as the age of the planets in our solar system.

Some readers may recall the infamous Velikovsky Affair, the concerted scientific persecution of Immanuel Velikovsky due to his 1950 theory that Venus was ejected from the planet Jupiter just about 3,500 years ago (possibly the result of cometary impact, something we observed just a few years ago). Velikovsky made a number of predictions about the high temperature (primarily internal heat), the circular orbit, and the atmosphere of Venus. He predicted a high concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in gaseous form circulating in the atmosphere, but planetary scientists have not found the large molecules he predicted.

One of the most exciting findings from the Venus Express mission was the discovery of Earth-like Lightning on Venus, which now places Venus in the exclusive company of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn as the only planetary bodies in our solar system known to generate lightning. According to one NASA-sponsored scientist on the mission…

“Lightning on Venus — as well as on any other planet — is an important discovery because the electrical discharges drive the chemistry of an atmosphere by breaking molecules into fragments that can then join with other fragments in unexpected ways. The lightning on Venus is unique from that found on Earth, Jupiter and Saturn in that it is the only lightning known that is not associated with water clouds. Instead, on Venus, the lightning is associated with clouds of sulfuric acid.”

The sulfur clouds (sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid) are above the CO₂ and water vapor canopy layer, higher in the stratosphere, which is where the strong lightning was observed. Which, if there are hydrocarbons in the Venusian stratosphere – as there are in Jupiter’s [Slavin, J.A., et al, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 10, 973-976 (1983)] – may explain why large molecules aren’t found. They’ve been “cracked” by strong electrical discharges.

Despite being “twins separated at birth,” our sister-planet has remained shrouded in mystery and anomalies that just don’t seem to fit with the orderly, clockwork solar system astronomer Harlow Shapely defended against Velikovsky’s catastrophism to his dying day. Of course, we now know that things in our solar system are not nearly as calm and orderly as Shapely believed, and that Venusian puzzles are still crying out for explanation.

Science marches ever onward, knowledge increases. We live in interesting times!

Links:

New Findings Underscore an Earth-Venus Kinship

Earth-like Lightning on Venus

Venus Is a New Planet

Velikovsky Affair

Big astrophysics science news this week that a Big Chunk of the Universe Is Missing – Again. This requires a little background for understanding how it is our universe can be so adept at playing hide-and-seek.

As much as 96% of the mass necessary to account for how our universe is observed to be has been missing for a long time. The mass is necessary to explain the gravity that holds galaxies together, but all the atomic matter we can see in planets, comets, asteroids, assorted space junk, stars and galaxies accounts for just 4% of it. In 1974 astronomer Vera Rubin discovered that instead of following a Newtonian scheme where Mercury travels faster around the sun than Neptune does, almost all stars rotating around a galaxy’s center – at any distance – all travel at the same speed.

There had to be some ‘extra’ source of gravity working in galaxies, but there wasn’t nearly enough mass to account for this anomaly. The choice was between gravity being variable (unthinkable!) or the existence of a great deal of extra mass that we couldn’t see. Scientists jumped on that answer in defense of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity and gifted us with “Dark Matter.”

They couldn’t come up with likely candidates enough to cover more than about 21% of the necessary extra mass, so they soon came up with some fudges for gravity itself – an “anti-gravity” force called Dark Energy where they could hide the anomalous data. They were up to 4% matter + 21% Dark Matter + 75% Dark Energy. Voilå! Universe explained.

That scientists had no real grasp on what Dark Matter and Dark Energy really are did not particularly upset them, and these have become consensus theory. There are some intriguing alternative theories out there, but none enjoy consensus status and are mostly considered somewhat ‘crackpot’ – aether theories, geometrical theories, and ‘hyper’ theories that include extra large dimensions are generally frowned upon even though some of them actually do attempt to describe the empirical observations without sacrificing 96% of reality to phantom agents.

In 2000, astrophysicists thought the missing matter might be in the form of gas or plasma in the intergalactic medium. Then in 2002 the Chandra space-based telescope seemed to confirm that theory when it discovered 7% of the missing universe.

By 2007 astronomers and astrophysicists were back on the trail, reporting that they’d found hundreds of ‘missing’ black holes hiding in galaxies billions of light years away. Which translates into a finding that billions of years ago there were hundreds of black holes in some galaxies…

“Active, supermassive black holes were everywhere in the early universe,” said Mark Dickinson of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Tucson, Ariz. “We had seen the tip of the iceberg before in our search for these objects. Now, we can see the iceberg itself.” Dickinson is a co-author of two new papers appearing in the Nov. 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Now the new research from the University of Alabama in Huntsville [UAH] informs us that we’re 20% light again even after the discoveries in 2002 and 2005 (and all those black holes discovered just last month). Turns out that a lot of those x-rays supposedly coming from the intergalactic clouds of hot gas are instead probably caused by electrons. Electrons are a lot smaller than atoms, with a lot less mass. Those rivers can’t hold the amount of mass previously attributed to them.

Well, they still have WIMPs [Weakly Interacting Massive Particles] as a candidate for missing matter. Problem with these theoretical beasties is that they’re even less interactive than neutrinos, so much more difficult to detect. In fact, nobody’s ever seen a WIMP or measured any Dark Energy. The term “Dark” in these cases means “We Don’t Know” what the heck it is, or even if it exists at all. But the standard models of how our universe works requires filling in huge (as in 90%) gaps with whatever sounds reasonable right now. The alternative – that our standard models are wrong – is too dire to contemplate.

So anyone interested in the stars – and that’s a lot of us, young and old – should try to keep current on the question of what the “missing” 90% of our universe might be, and where it could be hiding. It’s certainly an entertaining pastime, and never dull!

Links:

Dark Matter the Answer to the “Missing Universe?”

Astronomers Find Part of Universe’s Missing Matter

Big Bang Theory Saved

Galaxy Cluster Surveys May Help Explain “Dark Energy”