Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – The Universe Is Not In A Black Hole

Does a spinning massive object wind up spacetime? Credit: J Bergeron / Sky and Telescope Magazine. An APOD for 7 November 1997.

[/caption]

It has been reported that a recent scientific paper delivers the conclusion that our universe resides inside a black hole in another universe. In fact, this isn’t really what the paper concluded – although what the paper did conclude is still a little out of left field.

The Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama (ECKS) theory of gravity – claimed as an alternative to general relativity theory, although still based on Einstein field equations – seeks to take greater account of the effect of the spin of massive particles. Essentially, while general relativity has it that matter determines how spacetime curves, ECKS also tries to capture the torsion of spacetime, which is a more dynamic idea of curvature – where you have to think in terms of twisting and contortion, rather than just curvature.

Mind you, general relativity is also able to deal with dynamic curvature. ECKS proponents claim that where ECKS departs from general relativity is in situations with very high matter density – such as inside black holes. General relativity suggests that a singularity (with infinite density and zero volume) forms beyond a black hole’s event horizon. This is not a very satisfying result since the contents of black holes do seem to occupy volume – more massive ones have larger diameters than less massive ones – so general relativity may just not be up to the task of dealing with black hole physics.

ECKS theory attempts to step around the singularity problem by proposing that an extreme torsion of spacetime, resulting from the spin of massive particles compressed within a black hole, prevents a singularity from forming. Instead the intense compression increases the intrinsic angular momentum of the matter within (i.e. the spinning skater draws arms in analogy) until a point is reached where spacetime becomes as twisted, or as wound up, as it can get. From that point the tension must be released through an expansion (i.e. an unwinding) of spacetime in a whole new tangential direction – and voila you get a new baby universe.

But the new baby universe can’t be born and expand in the black hole. Remember this is general relativity. From any frame of reference outside the black hole, the events just described cannot sequentially happen. Clocks seem to slow to a standstill as they approach a black hole’s event horizon. It makes no sense for an external observer to imagine that a sequence of events is taking place over time inside a black hole.

Instead, it is proposed that the birth and expansion of new baby universe proceeds along a separate branch of spacetime with the black hole acting as an Einstein-Rosen bridge (i.e. a wormhole).

(Caption) The horizon problem in Big Bang cosmology. How is it that distant parts of the universe possess such similar physical properties? Well (putting your Occam brand razor aside), perhaps the whole contents of this universe was originally homogenized within a black hole from a parallel universe. Credit: Addison Wesley.

If correct, it’s a turtles on turtles solution and we are left to ponder the mystery of the first primeval universe which first formed the black holes from which all subsequent universes originate.

Something the ECKS hypothesis does manage to do is to provide an explanation for cosmic inflation. Matter and energy crunched within a black hole should achieve a state of isotropy and homogeneity (i.e. no wrinkles) – and when it expands into a new universe through a hypothetical wormhole, this is driven by the unwinding of the spacetime torsion that was built up within the black hole. So you have an explanation for why a universe expands – and why it is so isotropic and homogenous.

Despite there not being the slightest bit of evidence to support it, this does rank as an interesting idea.

Further reading: Poplawski, N.J. (2010) Cosmology with torsion – an alternative to cosmic inflation.

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Our Ageing Universe

Active energy transfer - the thing distinguishes a young universe from an old universe. Credit: Gemini observatory.

[/caption]

It all started so full of promise. All at once, our universe burst upon the scene, but much of that initial burst quickly dissipated into background neutrinos and photons – and ever since, pretty much  everything our universe has ever done has just dissipated more energy. So, despite the occasional enthusiastic outburst of supernovae and other celestial extravagances, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that our universe is getting on a bit.

The second law of thermodynamics (the one about entropy) demands that everything goes to pot over time – since anything that happens is an opportunity for energy to be dissipated.

The universe is full of energy and should always remain so, but that energy can only make something interesting happen if there is a degree of thermal disequilibrium. For example, if you take an egg out of the refrigerator and drop it in boiling water, it cooks. A useful and worthwhile activity, even if not a very efficient one – since lots of heat from the stove just dissipates into the kitchen, rather than being retained for the cooking of more eggs.

But, on the other hand, if you drop an already cooked, already heated egg into the same boiling water… well, what’s the point? No useful work is done, nothing of note really happens.

This is roughly the idea behind increasing entropy. Everything of note that happens in the universe involves a transfer of energy and at each such transfer some energy is lost from that system. So, following the second law to its logical conclusion, you eventually end up with a universe in thermal equilibrium with itself. At that point, there are no disequilibrium gradients left to drive energy transfer – or to cook eggs. Essentially, nothing else of note will ever happen again – a state known as heat death.

It’s true that the early universe was initially in thermal equilibrium, but there was also lots of gravitational potential energy. So, matter (both light and dark) ‘clumped’ – creating lots of thermal disequilibrium – and from there all sorts of interesting things were able to happen. But gravity’s ability to contribute useful work to the universe also has its limits.

In a static universe the end point of all this clumping is a collection of black holes – considered to be objects in a state of high entropy, since whatever they contain no longer engages in energy transfer. It just sits there – and, apart from some whispers of Hawking radiation, will just keep sitting there until eventually (in a googol or so years) the black holes evaporate.

The contents of an expanding universe may never achieve a state of maximum entropy since the expansion itself increases the value of maximum entropy for that universe – but you still end up with not much more than a collection of isolated and ageing white dwarfs – which eventually fizzle out and evaporate themselves.

A head count of the contributors to entropy in our universe. Supermassive black holes top the list. Credit: Egan and Lineweaver. (The full paper notes some caveats and recommendations for further work to improve these estimates).

It’s possible to estimate the current entropy of our universe by tallying up its various components – which have varying levels of entropy density. At the top of the scale are black holes – and at the bottom are luminous stars. These stars appear to be locally enthalpic – where for example, the Sun heats the Earth enabling all sorts of interesting things to happen here. But it’s a time-limited process and what the Sun mostly does is to radiate energy away into empty space.

Egan and Lineweaver have recently re-calculated the current entropy of the observable universe – and gained a value that is an order of magnitude higher than previous estimates (albeit we are talking 1×10104 – instead of 1×10103). This is largely the result of incorporating the entropy contributed by recently recognized supermassive black holes – where the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its size.

So this suggests our universe is a bit further down the track towards heat death than we had previously thought. Enjoy it while you can.

Further reading: Egan, C.A. and Lineweaver, C.H. (2010) A Larger Estimate of the Entropy of the Universe http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3983

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Brown Dwarfs Are Magnetic Too

Brown dwarf TWA 5B compared to Jupiter and the Sun. Although brown dwarfs are similar in size to Jupiter, they are much more dense and massive - between 13 and 80 Jupiter masses. Credit: chandra.harvard.edu

[/caption]

I feel a certain empathy for brown dwarfs. The first confirmed finding of one was only fifteen years ago and they remain frequently overlooked in most significant astronomical surveys. I mean OK, they can only (stifles laughter) burn deuterium but that’s something, isn’t it?

It has been suggested that a clever way of finding more brown dwarfs is in the radio spectrum. A brown dwarf with a strong magnetic field and a modicum of stellar wind should produce an electron cyclotron maser. Roughly speaking (something you can always depend on from this writer), electrons caught in a magnetic field are spun energetically in a tight circle, stimulating the emission of microwaves in a particular plane from the star’s polar regions. So you get a maser, essentially the microwave version of a laser, that would be visible on Earth – if we are in line of sight of it.

While the maser effect can probably be weakly generated by isolated brown dwarfs, it’s more likely we will detect one in binary association with a less mass-challenged star that is capable of generating a more vigorous stellar wind to interact with the brown dwarf’s magnetic field.

This maser effect is also proposed to offer a clever way of finding exoplanets. An exoplanet could easily outshine its host star in the radio spectrum if its magnetic field is powerful enough.

So far, searches for confirmed radio emissions from brown dwarfs or orbiting bodies around other stars have been unsuccessful, but this may become achievable in the near future with the steadily growing resolution of the European LOw Frequency ARray (LOFAR), which will be the best such instrument around until the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) is built – which won’t be seeing first light before at least 2017.

Geometrically-challenged aliens struggling to make a crop circle? Nope, it's a component of the LOFAR low frequency radio telescope array. Credit: www.lofar.org

But even if we can’t see brown dwarfs and exoplanets in radio yet, we can start developing profiles of likely candidates. Christensen and others have derived a magnetic scaling relationship for small scale celestial objects, which delivers predictions that fit well with observations of solar system planets and low mass main sequence stars in the K and M spectral classes (remembering the spectral class mantra Old Backyard Astronomers Feel Good Knowing Mnemonics).

Using the Christensen model, it’s thought that brown dwarfs of about 70 Jupiter masses may have magnetic fields in the order of several kilo-Gauss in their first hundred million years of life, as they burn deuterium and spin fast. However, as they age, their magnetic field is likely to weaken as deuterium burning and spin rate declines.

Brown dwarfs with declining deuterium burning (due to age or smaller starting mass) may have magnetic fields similar to giant exoplanets, anywhere from 100 Gauss up to 1 kilo-Gauss. Mind you, that’s just for young exoplanets – the magnetic fields of exoplanets also evolve over time, such that their magnetic field strength may decrease by a factor of ten over 10 billion years.

In any case, Reiners and Christensen estimate that radio light from known exoplanets within 65 light years will emit at wavelengths that can make it through Earth’s ionosphere – so with the right ground-based equipment (i.e. a completed LOFAR or a SKA) we should be able to start spotting brown dwarfs and exoplanets aplenty.

Further reading: Reiners, A. and Christensen, U.R. (2010) A magnetic field evolution scenario for brown dwarfs and giant planets.

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Coloring In The Oort Cloud

A very distant and very red Sedna. Credit: NASA, JPL, Caltech.

[/caption]

It’s possible that if we do eventually observe the hypothetical objects that make up the hypothetical Oort cloud, they will all be a deep red color. This red coloring will probably be a mix of ices, richly laced with organic compounds – and may represent remnants of the primordial material from which the solar system was formed.

Furthermore, the wide range of colors found across different classes of trans-Neptunian objects may help to determine their origins.

The current observable classes of trans-Neptunian objects includes Pluto and similar objects called plutinos, which are caught in a 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune towards the inner edge of the Kuiper belt. There are other Kuiper belt objects caught in a range of different resonant orbital ratios, including two-tinos – which are caught in a 1:2 resonance with Neptune – and which are found towards the outer edge of the Kuiper belt.

Otherwise, the majority of Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) are cubewanos (named after the first one discovered called QB1), which are also known as ‘classical’ KBOs. These are not obviously in orbital resonance with Neptune and their solar orbits are relatively circular and well outside Neptune’s orbit. There are two fairly distinct populations of cubewanos – those which have little inclination and those which are tilted more than 12 degrees away from the mean orbital plane of the solar system.

Beyond the Kuiper belt is the scattered disk – which contains objects with very eccentric elliptical orbits. So, although it may take hundreds of years for them to get there, the perihelions of many of these objects’ orbits are much closer to the Sun – suggesting this region is the main source of short period comets.

The trans-Neptunian landscape. Classical Kuiper belt objects have relatively circular orbits that never stray within the orbit of Neptune (yellow circle) - while plutinos and scattered disk objects have eccentric orbits that may. Classical objects with low inclinations (see ecliptic view) tend to have the deepest red coloration. Objects with higher inclination - and those with eccentric solar orbits which take them closer to the Sun - appear faded.

Now, there are an awful lot of trans-Neptunian objects out there and not all of them have been observed in detail, but surveys to date suggest the following trends:

  • Cubewanos with little inclination or eccentricity are a deep red color; and
  • Plutinos, scattered disk objects and highly inclined cubewanos are much less red.

Beyond the scattered disk are detached objects, that are clearly detached from the influence of the major planets. The best known example is Sedna – which is… yep, deep red (or ultra-red as the boffins prefer to say).

Sedna and other extreme outer trans-Neptunian objects are sometimes speculatively referred to as inner Oort cloud objects. So if we are willingly to assume that a few meager data points are representative of a wider (and hypothetical) population of Oort cloud objects – then maybe, like Sedna, they are all a deep red color.

And, looking back the other way, the ‘much less red’ color of highly inclined and highly eccentric trans-Neptunian objects is consistent with the color of comets, Centaurs (comets yet to be) and damocloids (comets that once were).

On this basis, it’s tempting to suggest that deep red is the color of primordial solar system material, but it’s a color that fades when exposed to moderate sunlight – something that seems to happen to objects that stray further inward than Neptune’s orbit. So maybe all those faded objects with inclined orbits used to exist much nearer to the Sun, but were flung outward during the early planetary migration maneuvers of the gas giants.

And the primordial red stuff? Maybe it’s frozen tholins – nitrogen-rich organic compounds produced by the irradiation of nitrogen and methane. And if this primordial red stuff has never been irradiated by our Sun, maybe it’s a remnant of the glowing dust cloud that was once our Sun’s stellar nursery.

Ah, what stories we can weave with scant data.

Further reading: Sheppard, S.S. The colors of extreme outer solar system objects.

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Animal Astronomy

Avian astronomers at work. Credit: abc.net.au.

[/caption]

In the 1950s, the Sauer research team locked some birds in Olbers planetarium and started messing with them. First they projected a northern hemisphere autumn sky and the birds flew ‘south’ – away from Polaris and keeping Betelgeuse to the left (‘east’). Then they projected a spring night sky and the birds flew ‘north’ towards Polaris with Betelgeuse again to their left, albeit this time in the ‘west’. The position of Betelgeuse appeared to be significant, perhaps because it’s one of the brighter stars in the northern hemisphere and just to the north of the celestial equator.

Later experiments with Indigo Buntings demonstrated that birds raised with no experience of the night sky didn’t have a clue what to do when released into a planetarium. However, birds that were raised with the night sky visible would fly ‘south’ away from the sky’s axis of rotation, whether that was Polaris or an artificial arbitrary axis created within the planetarium.

From this work, researchers concluded that it was unlikely that birds were born with a genetic star map, but instead learned to orientate themselves with respect to the rotating night sky by reference to other directional cues – like the position of the Sun and the Earth’s magnetic field.

It’s thought that many migratory birds closely monitor sunrise and sunset – allegedly when you see a line of birds on a power line, most will be facing east in the morning and west in the evening, recalibrating their internal compasses. Checking for a north-south plane of polarized light at sunrise and sunset may help them determine their latitude – by indicating how far off due east or west the Sun is when it’s at the horizon.

Pigeons have well developed magnetoreception that they can use as an alternative to solar navigation. For example, they can ‘home’ even with a heavily overcast sky – but get them to wear a little magnetized helmet that screws up their perception of the Earth’s magnetic field and they get lost. On the other hand, if it’s a clear day with the Sun visible they can find home just fine – even with a little magnetized helmet on.

As well as the birds – bacteria, bees, termites, lobsters, salamanders, salmon, turtles, mole rats and bats have all been shown to possess magnetoreception.

Magnetotactic bacteria manufacture their own magnetite crystals – building chains of crystals that mimic a compass needle. The bacteria appear to use their magnetite crystals for the simple purpose of determining which way is down – since a straight line to magnetic north will pass through the Earth’s surface.

Magnetospirillum with a line of synthesized magnetite crystals visible. Credit: www.microbiologybytes.com

It’s yet to be determined how a complex nervous system might interface with magnetite or whether magnetite is the primary mechanism in larger multicellular animals. Magnetite crystals have been isolated from bees and termites – and are apparently synthesized by them. However, in larger animals it’s harder to tell – as these crystals are tiny and difficult to find or visualize in vivo. An alternate magnetoreception mechanism based on photochemicals in the retina has been proposed for migratory birds – although a role for magnetite, particularly in pigeons which have relatively large concentrations of it in their beaks, can’t be ruled out.

Humans have traces of magnetite in their brains – although the court is still out on whether this gives us any capacity for direction finding by magnetoreception. Some research suggests a few individuals may have some very minor ability – but not enough for anyone to consider preferring this to their GPS.

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Stellar Archaeology

Artist's impression of Population 3 stars born over 13 billion years ago - the earliest, oldest and presumably now extinct star types. Credit: NASA.

[/caption]

Although, as we look further and deeper into the sky, we are always looking into the past – there are other ways of gaining information about the universe’s ancient history. Low mass, low metal stars may be remnants of the early universe and carry valuable information about the environment of that early universe.

The logic of stellar archaeology involves tracking generations of stars back to the very first stars seen in our universe. Stars born in recent eras, say within the last five or six billion years, we call Population I stars – which includes our Sun. These stars were born from an interstellar medium (i.e. gas clouds etc) that had been seeded by the death throes of a previous generation of stars we call Population II stars.

Population II stars were born from an interstellar medium that existed maybe 12 or 13 billion years ago – and which had been seeded by the death throes of Population III stars, the first stars ever seen in our universe.

And when I say death throes seeding the interstellar medium this includes average sized stars blowing off a planetary nebula at the end of their red giant phase – or bigger stars exploding as supernovae.

So for example, the low metal spectral signature of HE 0107-5240 matches that predicted for a very early low mass Population II star built from the end-products of a Population III supernova.

This is about as close as we can get gathering any information about Population III stars. Telescopes that can look deeper into space (and hence look further back in time) may eventually spot one – but it’s unlikely that any still exist. Theory has it that Population III stars formed from a homogenous interstellar medium of hydrogen and helium. The homogeneity of this medium meant that any stars that formed were all massive – in the order of hundreds of solar masses.

Stars of this scale, not only have short life spans but explode with such a force that the star literally blows itself to bits as a ‘pair-instability’ supernova – leaving no remnant neutron star or black hole behind. Supernova SN2006gy was probably a pair-instability supernova – mimicking the last gasps of Population III stars that lived more than 13 billion years ago.

Recipe for a pair instability supernova. In very massive stars, gamma rays radiating from the core become so energetic that they can undergo pair production after interaction with a nucleus. Essentially, the gamma ray creates a paired particle and antiparticle (commonly an electron and a positron). The loss of radiation pressure as gamma rays convert to particles results in gravitational collapse of the star's core - and kaboom! Credit: chandra.harvard.edu

It was only after Population III stars had seeded the interstellar medium with heavier elements that fine structure cooling resulted in disruption of thermal equilibrium and fragmentation of gas clouds – enabling smaller, and hence longer lived, Population II stars to be born.

Around the Milky Way, we can find very old Population II stars in orbiting dwarf galaxies. These stars are also common in the galactic halo and in globular clusters. However, in ‘the guts’ of the galaxy we find lots of young Population I stars.

This all leads to the view that the Milky Way is a gravitational hub nearly as old as the universe itself – which has been steadily growing in size and keeping itself looking young by maintaining a steady diet of ancient dwarf galaxies – which, deprived of such a diet, have remained largely unchanged since their formation in the early universe.

Further reading:

A. Frebel. Stellar Archaeology – Exploring the Universe with Metal-Poor Stars http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/1006.2419

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – SETI 2.0

Allen Telescope Array. Credit: SETI Institute

[/caption]

Fifty years of eerie silence in the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence has prompted some rethinking about what we should be looking for.

After all, it’s unlikely that many civilizations would invest a lot of time and resources into broadcasting a Yoo-hoo, over here signal, so maybe we have to look for incidental signs of alien activity – anything from atmospheric pollution on an exoplanet to signs of stellar engineering undertaken by an alien civilization working to keep their aging star from turning into a red giant.

We know a spectroscopic analysis of Earth’s atmosphere will indicate free molecular oxygen – a tell tale sign of life. The presence of chlorofluorocarbons would also be highly suggestive of advanced industrial activity. We also know that atomic bomb tests in the fifties produced perturbations to the Van Allen belts that probably persisted for weeks after each blast.

These are planet level signs of a civilization still below the level of a Kardashev Type 1 civilization. We are at level 0.73 apparently. A civilization that has reached the Type 1 level is capable of harnessing all the power available upon a single planet – and might be one that inadvertently signals its presence after thoughtfully disposing of large quantities of nuclear waste in its star. To find them, we should be scanning A and F type stars for spectral signatures of technetium – or perhaps an overabundance of praseodymium and neodymium.

We might also look for signs of stellar engineering indicative of a civilization approaching the Kardashev Type 2 level, which is a civilization able to harness all the power of a star. Here, we might find an alien civilization in the process of star lifting, where an artificial equatorial ring of electric current creates a magnetic field sufficient to both increase and deflect all the star’s stellar wind into two narrow polar jets.

Left image - A proposed model for 'star lifting'. An artificial equatorial ring of electric current (RC) produces a magnetic field which enhances and directs the star's stellar wind though magnetic nozzles (MN) to produce two polar jets (J). Right image (Credit: SETI institute) - Artists impression of the completed Allen Telescope Array for future SETI observations. The lead image for this article is part of the current Allen Array prototype, comprising 42 of the proposed 350 dishes.

These jets could be used for power generation, but might also represent a way to prolong the life of an aging star. Indeed, this may become a vital strategy for us to prolong the solar system’s habitable zone at Earth’s orbit. In less than a billion years, Earth’s oceans are expected to evaporate due to the Sun’s steadily increasing luminosity, but some carefully managed star lifting to modify the Sun’s mass could extend this time limit significantly.

It’s also likely that Type 2 civilizations will play with Hertzsprung–Russell (H-R) parameters to keep their Sun from evolving onto the red giant branch of the H-R diagram – or otherwise from going supernova. Some well placed and appropriately shielded nuclear bombs might be sufficient to stir up stellar material that would delay a star’s shift to core helium fusion – or otherwise to core collapse.

It’s been hypothesized that mysterious giant blue straggler stars, which have not gone supernova like most stars of their type would, may have been tinkered with in this manner (some stress on the word hypothesized there).

As for detecting Type 3 civilizations… tricky. It’s speculated that they might build Dyson nets around supermassive black holes to harvest energy at a galactic level. But indications are that they then just use all that energy to go around annoying the starship captains of Type I civilizations. So, maybe we need to draw a line about who exactly we want to find out there.

Further reading:

Starry Messages: Searching for Signatures of Interstellar Archaeology http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5455

Detectability of Extraterrestrial Technological Activities http://www.coseti.org/lemarch1.htm

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Is Time Real?

Time is an illusion caused by the passage of history (Douglas Adams 1952-2001).

The way that we deal with time is central to a major current schism in physics. Under classic Newtonian physics and also quantum mechanics – time is absolute, a universal metronome allowing you determine whether events occur simultaneously or in sequence. Under Einstein’s physics, time is not absolute – simultaneity and sequence depend on who’s looking. For Einstein, the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant and time changes in whatever way is required to keep the speed of light constant from all frames of reference.

Under general relativity (GR) you are able to experience living for three score and ten years regardless of where you are or how fast you’re moving, but other folk might measure that duration quite differently. But even under GR, we need to consider whether time only has meaning for sub-light speed consciousnesses such as us. Were a photon to have consciousness, it may not experience time – and, from its perspective, would cross the apparent 100,000 light year diameter of the Milky Way in an instant. Of course, that gets you wondering whether space is real either. Hmm…

Quantum mechanics does (well, sometimes) require absolute time – most obviously in regards to quantum entanglement where determining the spin of one particle, determines the spin of its entangled partner instantaneously and simultaneously. Leaving aside the baffling conundrums imposed by this instantaneous action over a distance – the simultaneous nature of the event implies the existence of absolute time.

In one attempt to reconcile GR and quantum mechanics, time disappears altogether – from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for quantum gravity – not that many regard this as a 100% successful attempt to reconcile GR and quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, this line of thinking highlights the ‘problem of time’ when trying to develop a Theory of Everything.

The winning entries for a 2008 essay competition on the nature of time run by the Fundamental Questions Institute could be roughly grouped into the themes ‘time is real’, ‘no, it isn’t’ and ‘either way, it’s useful so you can cook dinner.’

The ‘time isn’t real’ camp runs the line that time is just a by-product of what the universe does (anything from the Earth rotating to the transition of a Cesium atom – i.e. the things that we calibrate our clocks to).

How a return to equilibrium after a random downward fluctuation in entropy might appear. First there was light, then a whole bunch of stuff happened and then it started getting cold and dark and empty.

Time is the fire in which we burn (Soran, Star Trek bad guy, circa 24th century).

‘Time isn’t real’ proponents also refer to Boltzmann’s attempt to trivialise the arrow of time by proposing that we just live in a local pocket of the universe where there has been a random downward fluctuation of entropy – so that the perceived forward arrow of time is just a result of the universe returning to equilibrium – being a state of higher entropy where it’s very cold and most of the transient matter that we live our lives upon has evaporated. It is conceivable that another different type of fluctuation somewhere else might just as easily result in the arrow pointing the other way.

Nearly everyone agrees that time probably doesn’t exist outside our Big Bang universe and the people who just want to get on and cook dinner suggest we might concede that space-time could be an emergent property of quantum mechanics. With that settled, we just need to rejig the math – over coffee maybe.

I was prompted to write this after reading a Scientific American June 2010 article, Time Is An Illusion by Craig Callender.

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Exoplanet Weather Report

Trying to determine the behaviour of the atmosphere of a hot Jupiter – a gas giant so close to its star that it is either tidally locked or caught in a slow orbital resonance – is tricky, given that we have no precedents here in our solar system. But it is possible to explore in detail what exoplanet atmospheres might be like, based on solar system examples.

For example, there’s Venus – which, although not tidally locked, has such a slow rotation (once every 243 Earth days) that its dynamics virtually match those of a tidally locked planet.

Interestingly, Venus’ upper atmosphere super-rotates, meaning it circulates in the same direction as the planet’s rotation but much faster – in Venus’ case, at sixty times the speed of the planet’s rotation. It’s likely that these winds are driven by the large temperature gradient that exists between the day and night sides of the planet.

Conversely Earth, with its rapid rotation, has much less potential difference between its day and night side temperatures – so that its weather systems are more strongly influenced by the actual rotation of the planet and also by the temperature gradient between equator and pole. The nett result is lots of circular weather systems with their direction determined by the Coriolis effect – counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern.

And of course we do have gas giants, even if they aren’t hot. Being so far from the Sun, dayside-nightside and equator-pole temperature gradients have little influence on our gas giants’ atmospheric circulation. The most significant issues are each planet’s rotation speed and each planet’s size.

Jupiter and Saturn’s larger radius exceeds their Rhines scale forcing the bulk flow of their atmospheres to break up into distinct bands with turbulent eddies between them. However, the smaller radius of Uranus and Neptune allows the bulk of the atmosphere to circulate as an unbroken whole, only breaking into two smaller bands at each pole.

The 'Rhines Scale' applied to solar system gas giants predicts that atmospheric circulation on large radius planets (Jupiter and Saturn) fragments into distinct bands, but doesn't on smaller radius planets (Uranus and Neptune). Credit: Showman et al 2010.

Partly because it’s cooler, but mostly because it’s smaller, Neptune’s atmosphere has much less turbulent flow than Jupiter – which goes some way to explaining why it has the fastest stratospheric wind speeds in the solar system.

All these factors are useful in trying to determine how the atmosphere of a hot Jupiter might behave. Being so close to their star, it’s likely these planets will be partly or fully tidally locked – so the main driver for atmospheric circulation will be, like Venus, the dayside-nightside temperature gradient . So a super-rotating stratosphere, circulating many times faster than the inner parts of the planet, is plausible.

From there, modelling suggests that the combination of fast wind speed and slow rotation means the Rhines scale will become bigger than a Jupiter-sized planetary radius , so there will be less turbulent flow and the upper atmosphere might circulate as one, without breaking up into the multiple bands we see on Jupiter.

Anyway, that’s my take on an interesting 50 page arXiv article with lots of (to me) bewildering formulae, but also lots of comprehensible narrative and diagrams. The article consolidates current thinking and lays a sound foundation for making sense of future observational data – both hallmarks of a nicely crafted ‘lit review’.

Posted on by Steve Nerlich

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Life In Cosmic Rays

Lightning and Thunder
Lightning

We all know that astronomy is just plain awesome – and pretty much everything that’s interesting in the world links back to astronomy and space science in one way or another. Here I’m thinking gravity, wireless internet and of course ear thermometers. But wouldn’t it be great if we could ascribe the whole origin of life to astronomy as well? Well, apparently we can – and it’s all about cosmic rays.

Three key contenders for how it all started are:

1) Deep ocean vents, with heat, water and lots of chemistry churning away, enabled the random creation of a self-replicating crystalline compound – which, being self-replicating, rapidly came to dominate an environment of limited raw materials. From there, because it was imperfectly self-replicating, particular forms that were slightly more efficient at utilizing those limited resources came to dominate over other forms and yada, yada;

2) Something arrived on a comet or asteroid. This is the panspermia hypothesis, which just pushes the problem one step back, since life still had to start somewhere else. A bit like the whole God hypothesis really. Nonetheless, it’s a valid option; and

3) The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that if you zap a simple mix of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen with an electric spark, roughly equivalent to a lightning bolt in the early Earth’s prebiotic atmosphere, you convert about 15% of the carbon present in that inorganic atmosphere into organic compounds, notably 22 amino acid types. From this base, it’s assumed that a self-replicating molecule came to be and from there… well, see point 1).

Additional support for the Miller-Urey option comes from the analysis of ‘old’ genes, being genes which are common to a wide diversity of different species and are hence likely to have been passed down from a common early ancestor. It’s found that these old genes preferentially code for amino acids that can be produced in the Miller-Urey experiment, being the only amino acids that would have been available to early Earth organisms. Only later did a much larger set of amino acids become available when subsequent generations of organisms began to learn how to synthesize them.

Nonetheless, Elykin and Wolfendale argue that the available spark energy generated in a average lightning storm would not have been sufficient to generate the reactions of the Miller-Urey experiment and that an extra factor is needed to somehow intensify the lightning in early Earth’s atmosphere. This is where cosmic rays come in.

An electron air shower produced by a high energy cosmic ray particle.

While many cosmic rays are generated by solar activity and most don’t penetrate far into the atmosphere, high energy cosmic ray particles, which generally originate from outside the solar system, can create electron air showers. These arise from a cosmic ray particle colliding with an atmospheric particle producing a cascade of charged pions, which decay into muons and then electrons – resulting in a dense collection of electrons showering down to two kilometers or less above the Earth’s surface.

Such a dense electron air shower could initiate, enhance and sustain a high energy lightning storm and the researchers propose that, perhaps when the early solar system was drifting past some primeval supernova event over four billion years ago, this was what started it all.

Awesome.