Archive for the 'Astronomy' Category

May 31 2018

Panspermia Pseudoscience

Last week I wrote about a recent article claiming evidence for panspermia (the idea that life had limited origins and then seeded itself throughout the galaxy), and the underlying idea of panspermia itself. I concluded that the new paper provided no compelling evidence, and panspermia, while not impossible, is a fringe hypothesis with no credible supporting evidence.

In response one of the co-authors of the paper (Ted Steele) wrote me an e-mail, attempting to defend the paper. I welcome the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about any topic I blog about, and so here is my response. Here is the e-mail in full:

Dear Steven:

I can see you have got quite emotional (attached) – and I am sure you are therefore not thinking straight. I tried posting this reply to your Blog comment but for technical reasons( I think ) I was excluded. So I decided to email you directly and share my response with some of your academic colleagues.

I suggest you re-read our paper carefully as you read this note. See https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.03.004

I am a molecular immunologist and evolutionist of 50 years standing. I am also the lead author of this paper on the “Cause of the Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic? ” I do not publish scientific trivia, and apart from key books the main body of my work is published in peer reviewed journals – check me on PubMed searching “Steele EJ”. Many of my PDFs are also at my academia.edu site (below). My main field is the study of the RNA and DNA editing mechanisms in the somatic hypermutation and germline evolution of antibody variable genes – however I am very interested in pragmatically evaluating the evidence consistent with or predicted by the Hoyle-Wickramasinghe Panspermia explanatory paradigm.

I have spent 10 years or more poring over and thinking about all the multifactorial evidence and all the explanations and criticisms. I expect serious critics to do what I have done – confront all the “extraordinary ” evidence in conflict with the terrestrial paradigm. Most of my co-authors have done that. Skeptics must do this – confront and evaluate the evidence and the primary literature. Here some examples from our paper, which are paradigm shifting (that is, pure nonsense under the terrestrial neo-Darwinism paradigm).

We now have a set of extraordinary facts to explain. The usual skeptical response in these situations is that “Extraordinary Explanations require Extraordinary Evidence’. The situation now is the reverse. Extraordinary, and multifactorial evidence exists now on Earth and its immediate environs. So now we must provide an “Extraordinary” explanation that fits all these facts and makes sense of them – this has been the aim of Science since time immemorial.

Four extraordinary set of biological facts are speaking for themselves:

• Eukaryotic fossils in meteorites > 4.5 billion years old ( e.g. Murchison)

• Interstellar dust Infra red extinction spectrum = infra red extinction spectrum of freeze dried E. coli (this is the most incredible scientific result I have ever seen, see Fig 1 in our paper)

• Bacteria in the cosmic dust on the external surface of the International Space Station

• Tardigrades

I have not added a list of other data, including space hardy biological data, Mars data, nor the Octopus RNA editing data, because I do not need to – four , quite unrelated, data sets are enough for biological significance. ( Statistical significance does not enter the picture). The skeptic and traditional Astrophysicist now needs to provide a convincing explanation of these data sets that avoids Panspermia.

I am a pragmatic Popperian – I deal in hard facts that require a unifying explanation.

Yours

Ted Steele

Continue Reading »

Like this post? Share it!

No responses yet

May 22 2018

Alien Cephalopods and Panspermia

A recent paper in Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Cause of Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?, has caused quite a stir. I think that was the intention, and the majority of journalists ate it up, either not caring if the science was good, or not able to tell.

One main point of the paper is that the Cambrian Explosion – the geologically rapid event about 550 million years ago in which multicellular life appears in the fossil record – was so rapid because it may have been the result of alien genetic information. The authors further argue cephalopods, especially the octopus, are so amazing because they either incorporated alien genes into their makeup, or they are completely alien, coming to earth as cryopreserved eggs inside comets. The third leg of their alleged evidence for panspermia is microfossils found in meteorites.

All three arguments are utter crap. The underlying claim of panspermia – that life has seeded the galaxy from one or a limited number of initial sources – is highly problematic but perhaps not 100% nonsense.

The Three Lines of Evidence

Many science bloggers have trashed this article, doing damage control for the irresponsible journalists who probably should not be covering science stories. I will only quickly summarize here.

Continue Reading »

Like this post? Share it!

No responses yet

May 08 2018

Stephen Hawking’s Parting Shot

Published by under Astronomy

In the excellent series, Rick and Morty, the scientist Rick Sanchez invented a portal gun that allows him to jump into any of the infinite number of universes. This is a great plot device that allows for many funny and absurd scenarios. There are also parts of this idea that are not implausible, according to cosmologists.

Stephen Hawking, with coauthor Thomas Hertog, had something to say about the multi-universe theory in his final paper published 10 days prior to his death. The paper, 20 years in the making, reverses some of Hawking’s earlier positions and also, if ultimately viable, still leaves much work to be done.

This is one of those scientific arguments that is incomprehensible in its language and math outside of a small group of experts. I have no hope of reading and understanding the original paper. But I will do my best to pull together translations of the basic concepts.

In this paper Hawking and Hertog are reversing one idea introduced by Hawking many years ago, that the universe is finite but unbound in time. This is literally impossible to imagine, but his analogy is to think of how being unbound but finite in space works. Imagine the surface of a ball. You can walk around the surface and never reach an end, but that surface is finite because it is curved back in on itself. What if time worked the same way? The life of our universe is a finite time loop, with no edge.

Continue Reading »

Like this post? Share it!

No responses yet

May 03 2018

What the Flat-Earth Movement Tells Us

Whenever I write about flat-earthers, those who, incredibly, actually believe in the 21st century that the world is flat, there are multiple comments to the effect that we are just getting punked. No one really believes the world is flat, they are just saying that to wind us up, and we are taking the bait.

But this view is demonstrably wrong. I have actually encountered flat-earthers out in the wild, so to speak – in meat space. They really do seriously entertain the theory that the earth is flat. Harry T Dyer also reports recently in Raw Story about a three day convention of flat-earthers. They weren’t tongue-in-cheek having a laugh. They were dead serious.

I think the flat-earth deniers, if you will, are missing the point. They are approaching the issue like most people do initially – looking at the claims from a scientific point of view. From that angle the claims of flat-earthers are beyond absurd. They are so extremely ignorant and illogical that it seems reasonable to consider that either there is some psychological pathology involved, or it’s just a hoax.

There is no doubt that the belief that the earth is flat is rooted in a profound scientific illiteracy. It is not only ignorant of the findings of science, but also of the history of science, and any knowledge of the institutions of science and the participation of countless students and citizen scientists. But flat-eartherism is not about scientific illiteracy – meaning it is not merely a manifestation of profound ignorance of science (which is also why it cannot be corrected with scientific information). As Dyer also points out, belief in a flat earth is ultimately about rejecting institutional knowledge itself.

Continue Reading »

Like this post? Share it!

No responses yet

Apr 03 2018

Fermi vs Drake

Published by under Astronomy

In the world of Dune, human civilization about 10,000 years in the future had colonized the galaxy, with an empire spanning a “million” worlds. There were no aliens to get in our way, so once we had the technology for interstellar travel, we spread out. The first Dune novel was published 15 years after Fermi made his famous observation – essentially, if aliens exist, where are they? Why haven’t they colonized the galaxy like the humans in Dune?

More than half a century later, the Fermi Paradox remains a hotly debated mystery. One might also invoke the Drake Equation in this discussion. I often hear the Drake Equation dismissed as pseudoscience, but it is just a thought experiment. It is an equation that can be used to calculate the number of technological civilizations in the universe by plugging in all the relevant variables – number of stars, then planets, then planets with life, than life that evolved intelligence, etc.  The only thing that can be considered pseudoscience is plugging in numbers that are just guesses and pretending they are scientific estimates.

The Drake Equation

We have started to make progress informing the variables in the Drake Equation, however. Astronomers have a pretty good handle on how many stars there are in the observable universe. Current estimates are that there are about 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe, with an average of about 100 million stars per galaxy – 200 quintillion stars. We could be off by an order or magnitude or two, either way that is a massive number.

However, many people are interested in the subquestion – how common is intelligent life in the Milky Way galaxy? Therefore, how many stars are there in the Milky Way?  Estimates vary there as well, but it is on the order of 100 billion (could be several hundred billion).

After estimating the number of stars, further estimates in the Drake Equation get immediately dodgy. What we need to know next is how many stars have planets, and what is the typical distribution of planets by size and distance from their host star. In other words, how many stars have planets that can potentially host life? This is further complicated by the fact that we can only guess at how adaptable “life” is. Can life develop under the ice of large moons of gas giants? How about in the upper atmospheres of those gas giants?

It is easier, therefore, to answer the question – how many Earth-like planets are out there?

Continue Reading »

Like this post? Share it!

No responses yet

Mar 29 2018

Galaxy Without Dark Matter

Published by under Astronomy

One of the cool things about astronomy is that the universe is a huge place, and we can look in any direction and see lots of stuff. Current estimates are that there are about 2 trillion galaxies in the visible universe. Galaxies vary in size, but have on the order of hundreds of billions of stars.

What this means is that even if a phenomenon occurs only in one in every billion galaxies, there are still two thousands of them out there for us to find. Or even a one-in-a-million star will occur hundreds of thousands of times in our own galaxy. So the more we look, the rarer and rarer stuff we will find.

Recently astronomers happened upon one such rare occurrence – a galaxy that appears to be devoid of dark matter. That’s not supposed to happen, so if it is confirmed by longer study will have significant implications for our understanding of the universe.

Dark matter is material that has a gravitational effect that we can observe, but does not radiate and so is “dark”. The existence of dark matter was first proposed by Fritz Zwicky to explain the apparent rotation of observed galaxies. Based on Newton’s gravitational equations, we can calculate how fast a galaxy should rotate based on how much mass it contains. Another way to look at this, if we observe how fast a galaxy is rotating, we can calculate how much mass it should contain. If it contained less than the needed mass, the stars would be flung away by their observed velocity.

Continue Reading »

Like this post? Share it!

No responses yet

Jan 11 2018

Fast Radio Bursts – Still Not Aliens

Published by under Astronomy

This is a (sort of) follow up to my previous post. Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are a legitimate astronomical mystery, and very interesting. They are very brief (30 microseconds to 9 milliseconds) and very powerful bursts of radio waves. To date about 30 FRBs have been detected. Most of these FRBs are one-offs – they occur once and never repeat (at least so far). There is one exception, however, FRB 121102 (more on that below).

What do we know about FRBs so far? They are isotropic, which means they occur all over the sky. They are not concentrated in the galactic disk. This by itself implies they are extragalactic. But also analysis of the radio bursts indicate that they have traveled through intergalactic plasma, for billions of light years. So they must also be incredibly powerful. The radio waves are broadband, so they are spread throughout the radio wavelengths. They are also highly polarized, which means they were aligned at their creation with a strong magnetic field.

Because they are radio bursts, they are studied by radio astronomers, which includes SETI astronomers, whose primary mission is to survey the sky for possible alien communications. In an SGU interview with SETI astronomer Seth Shostak he indicated that SETI does a lot of non-ET-related astronomy. This is a good example of that – they are helping to detect and analyze FRBs, including analysis of FRB 121102.

Continue Reading »

Like this post? Share it!

29 responses so far

Jan 09 2018

Tabby’s Star Mystery Partly Solved

Published by under Astronomy

It’s not aliens.

So far, no astronomical mystery has turned out to be aliens, although this hypothesis seems to come up every time. The first detections of signals from pulsars were named LGMs for “little green men.”

I’m not really criticizing this – part of me wishes the mystery will turn out to be evidence of an alien technological civilization. I always think of how plausible that is for an explanation. But still it should be last on the list. Chances are overwhelming that we are just seeing some new or unusual natural phenomenon. It’s a big complex universe out there.

In this case astronomers found a genuine mystery – a star that dimmed and brightened over time to a degree never seen before. The star has the designation KIC 8462852, and has been nicknamed “Tabby’s Star” after the astronomer who first described it, Tabetha Boyajian (she actually led a team of 200 astronomers involved in the work).

The intensity of the light coming from the star, which is a little bigger and 4.7 times brighter than our sun and is about 1300 light years away, dims at irregular intervals by as much as 22%. This could not be caused by a planet passing in between us – even a Jupiter-sized planet would only block about 1% of the light from the star. And what’s with the irregular period? Dimming from an object in orbit should be very regular.

The best hypothesis was that a swarm or cloud of something was blocking the light. It would have to be a big and dense cloud, however. This hypothesis had problems also, however, because such a cloud should be heated up and glowing in the infrared, but we don’t see it.

The “swarm” idea sparked the notion of a Dyson swarm, which is a hypothesized high-tech structure surrounding a star used to capture the light for energy. An advanced civilization, for example, could power themselves with either a large single structure of solar cells, or a swarm of smaller ones.

No scientists really took the alien megastructure hypothesis seriously, even though it could not be entirely ruled out. It was just way too early to get excited, and it was overwhelmingly likely that a natural explanation was to be found. But scientists love a mystery in any case, and whatever was going on around Tabby’s star was likely to be new and interesting.

What astronomers needed was a lot more data. So Boyajian and others started a kickstarter campaign to fund the telescope time they would need to gather that data. The campaign was successful, exceeding their needed $100,000. Last week they published the result of their analysis and…no aliens.

What they did was look at the different wavelengths of light to see how they were dimmed. If the swarm that is causing the dimming is comprised of solid objects, whether rocks, planetary debris, comets, or solar panels, then all wavelengths should be dimmed equally. That’s not what they found. They found that different wavelengths were dimmed to different degrees at different times.

That is what you would expect to find if the cloud (circumstellar material) blocking the light were comprised of very tiny particles (smaller than a micron), like dust. So that is what they concluded – there is a dense dust cloud around Tabby’s star blocking the light from our perspective. This also makes sense in terms of the variable periods, because different densities in the cloud could cause random fluctuations in the amount of light blocked.

But of course now astronomers just have a new mystery – what caused this massive fine dust cloud around Tabby’s star? Comets are very dusty, and a dust cloud like this could result from a comet – but it’s a lot of dust. It’s also probably close to the star, which means it is also probably a recent phenomenon as a dust cloud would likely not survive long that close to a star that bright. This also still doesn’t explain the lack of an infrared glow from the cloud.

The results also don’t rule out that the star is dimming and brightening on its own, and not just being blocked from view. And of course, some hopefuls have pointed out that it could be a swarm of alien nanobots or similar microscopic technology. Sure.

There is still more science to be done here, but this latest result does add a significant piece to the puzzle. It’s also cool that the research was crowd-funded. That’s a great way to get private citizens involved in science, and to fund more science. That may, in fact, be the bigger story here. Yeah for crowdfunding cool science.

Like this post? Share it!

9 responses so far

Dec 15 2017

Saturn’s Rings Are Younger Than Previously Thought

Published by under Astronomy

The gorgeous rings of Saturn are one of the most dramatic features of our solar system, and certainly a favorite of any backyard astronomer. Are they, however, a fixture that have been present for the majority of the life of our solar system, or are they a recent addition?

Of course we have no observations from millions or billions of years ago, so we can only infer their probable age. Up until recently astronomers believed they were probably ancient because the large collisions that likely produced them would have been far more likely in the early crowded solar system. However – recent evidence from Cassini has changed that conclusion.

The Cassini probe made detailed observations of Saturn and its rings for years, until it plummeted into the planet this September. Scientists are still analyzing all the data it sent back home. Two lines of evidence suggest that the rings of Saturn are far younger than previously suspected.

Continue Reading »

Like this post? Share it!

3 responses so far

Oct 20 2017

Making Oxygen on Mars

Published by under Astronomy,Technology

Mars baseAt some point humans will travel to Mars. It seems inevitable, the only question being when that will happen. Optimists like Musk think it will happen before mid-century, but that may not be realistic. There are significant logistical hurdles without clear solutions.

Some argue, and I agree with this strategy, that we should focus first on a moon base. The moon is a lot closer, which solves many problems right there. But otherwise it would have many of the same challenges as Mars, and so if we develop a base on the moon we can use what we learn to be better able to tackle Mars. Further the moon can be a literal launching pad for Mars.

While Mars has some extra challenges, it may have some advantages as well over the moon. NASA experts have observed that Mars has just enough of an atmosphere to be a problem. It has 1% of the pressure of Earth, which means for astronauts it is functionally the same as a hard vacuum. You still need pressure suits, pressurized living spaces, and you need a supply of air to breath.

Continue Reading »

Like this post? Share it!

15 responses so far

Next »