Stupid Questions

I just read a post on io9 that asked a question that irks me to no end regarding money and science.  Is it worth spending a crap-ton of money to prove [insert some science-y thing here] right/wrong?  That's the question?  I never really had a good counter argument that I really liked until I saw a fellow reader's comment back.  It went along the lines of "if we can spend crap-tons of money on movies that suck, why not on something more constructive like furthering humanity's knowledge."  Booya!  

Now, don't get me wrong.  I enjoy a beautiful CG romp of mayhem and destruction as much as the next guy, but if the plot is going to be crap it just isn't worth it.  This guy listed, among others, Transformers and the Star Wars prequels and I have to agree.  Big movies and all the money went into big names and fancy CG.  So what do we have?  2-3 hours of cool special effects, bad plot and a coaster (if you bought the movie).  I just wish that whoever funded these works of suck would consider sacrificing one movie's budget to fund a science project.  (Note: if they already do this, let me know and I'll apologize).  

To summarize, it is a ridiculous question to ask when so much money is spent on other less useful things.  But it does not have to be just on science either!  Sacrifice a movie and feed some people for a month or restore a poisoned water supply or anything like that.  I would love to hear about that happening as well.  It's just that this article was related to science so that is the first thing I thought about.  

Time has Velocity?

The period between school semesters is fraught with peril.  It would be like a ship of the line (circa 1857) traversing a shoal known for harboring Reefs of Peril®.  If you don't keep your mind active it's going to crash.  In an effort to stave off the intake of water followed by certain ingestion by a shark I have been reading The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.  It is a good read but somewhat slow at times.  I did want to share something briefly that I came across and in conjunction with a previous post I did on time travel.  Greene was explaining relativity and the effect that moving clocks run slower.  I have often times had difficulty with these subjects since I have trouble identifying who the observer is at the moment.  If you were to look at a situation from the point of view of the other guy (the moving object), you would have a completely different problem.  Anyway, this is not about that.

The thing that Greene mentioned was about how time and space work.  The top speed in the universe (so far) is lightspeed (that speed from Star Wars that would make the galaxy the size of our solar system).  Also remember that one moves both through 3D space and also through time from one second to the next.  Greene wrote that one's total velocity through space-time is equal to the speed of light.  Wha?  Your speed through space plus your speed through time is equal to the speed of light.  Basically, if you're sitting still and not moving at all your speed would be 3 times 10 to the 8 meters per second.  Alright?  Now, start moving.  Since your total speed in space-time can't exceed lightspeed, some of your velocity in time must be transferred to your motion in space!  Whoa!  Thus your watch starts going slower.  Get going faster and faster and a crap-ton of your temporal velocity gets stolen by the space motion.  That's why if you approach lightspeed in your ship, turn around after a  few years (by your clock!) and come back to Earth that you'll find many a decade have gone by (according to the Earth clocks).  I believe the real explanation would be nothing like this, but it was the best description for the reason moving clocks go slower that I've ever seen.  How cool, eh?

Disclaimer: After writing this post I notice that I used speed and velocity, but being too lazy to fix it, know that I meant velocity with every instance of the word speed.

Day II - End of the Universe

What is an interesting thing to think about if you're a long term thinker?  How about the end of the universe?  Apparently, a new calculation of the amount of entropy in the universe has revealed much higher numbers than originally thought.  Of course the researchers can't put a number yet on when exactly every particle in the universe is around the same energy excitement level, but they assured us that it would be after the sun has done its red giant blossoming thing.

I wonder if this 'heat death scenario' is the same as another end of days theory I've heard about?  It involves the expansion of the universe eventually leading to a point, the 'Big Rip,' where no matter will coalesce and form new stars anymore.  Everything in the universe - stars, planets, moons - will be smeared out to elementary particles just floating in space.  They'll never get back together for a reunion party in a star's core or a planet's crust because everything will be too spread out.  Boring!  Of course before that happens the expansion, which increases, will cause every galaxy to disappear from view.  That's right.  They'll be so far away the light won't reach us.  The only stars will be those in our own galaxy and of course those will be going out as the galaxy evolves and no new ones will form...and it leads to particle butter scraped over too much bread!  

Outraged

While reading the XKCD for today, I read on the mouseover that NASA pretty much threw in the towel on the Mars rover Spirit.  My best understanding of what has happened is that Spirit got stuck and has been immobile for some time.  NASA now calls it a "stationary research station" and expects dust buildup on the solar panels to eventually force a final shutdown.  Of course, this little rover has been active for 5 years more that it was supposed to be so big kudos to the design gang.  Wanting to get the full story though, I performed a search for 'NASA news' and the first thing to pop up was this.  Obama is canceling the Constellation program!?  I am so pissed right now.  First Bush cans the shuttle program thereby removing any independent method for the US to get people into space, and then this guy cancels funding for the next generation of space-faring craft.  Instead the government will outsource ISS trips to other governments and encourage funding for private sectors to develop spacecraft or some crap like that.  I can understand canceling the shuttles; they're old and we need something new.  But scrapping the new plan is stupid.  Also don't misunderstand me in that I think it's great that other countries are getting to develop their own manned missions.  I'm just angry that we (the US) won't have one anymore.  The article also says that NASA will be encouraged to focus on Earth-based science like "monitoring climate change."  Huh?  Doesn't the government already have somebody (who is already getting funding) doing that?  I suppose the next step would be to shut down satellites that do silly non-climate-change-sciency things.  What does 1/4 of NASA stand for again?  Space.

**Disclaimer after the fact: I apologize for my poorly researched rant.  Should anything I've said not be true, please inform me nicely.

Here is the story about Spirit though.

Einstein Field Equations

Here in Germany I knew I would be probably yearning for some English, especially in my schooling.  As such, I signed up for a Nuclear Astrophysics class as some of you dear readers already know.  Also, this is a graduate level class.  I knew, or at least had heard, of the Einstein field equations and how they were supposed to equal 42 or some such thing...alright that last part is a lie.  I had heard of them before though.  So it turns out that this class seems to me to be more Cosmology than Nuclear Astrophys, especially since one of the first things mentioned in lecture was how we would develop the tools to solve the field equations in the first few weeks.  Here we are almost 2 months in and we recently got there.

I was amazed.  Why?  Because I was able to follow the steps.  These are 10-coupled equations.  You start with defining the metric which I think describes how the space-time you have should work.  On second thought I'm pretty sure that's wrong, but please roll with it for the purposes of this blog.  Anyway, you have to have this metric so that you can find the Christoffel symbols.  With the Christoffel symbols and the metric, you calculate the Riemann-Christoffel tensor and from that tensor, you use the metric to contract it to the second-rank Ricci tensor.  From the Ricci tensor, contracting with the metric again gets you the Ricci scalar.  And with all these pieces you solve the equations.  I was wowed.  I'm still not sure exactly what these equations tell us, but I'm pretty sure they describe the universe.  Holy cow.  

On a related note, I discovered today that I am definitely a theorist, not an experimentalist.  Sure, I like to think I have a little engineering in my blood, but that's just from watching too much MacGyver as a kid.  I definitely prefer math and the cosmos to experiments with circuits or particle accelerators and what not.  I'm happy sitting at a computer analyzing light from start thousands of light-years away or manually calculating Fourier transforms.  Is that wrong?  

No.  Cheers!

As Promised...

So I promised a story last time and as I took a brief restroom break from my homework, I chanced to read in the magazine Astronomy a brief article regarding "dark flow." Dark flow is a term coined by a researcher whose team discovered something I think is one of the coolest things ever. Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, and his team discovered that at least 700 massive galaxy clusters (a large number of galaxies relatively close together) are all moving as groups towards a single point in the sky!

Let me use a different example in case you didn't follow that. Imagine if 700 million people on Earth were all inexplicably pulled 20ft towards the Space Needle here in Seattle. It's something like that, only they keep moving. Can you imagine how crazy this is? At least 700 individual galactic clusters are all moving towards one point! It's hypothesized that there is a concentration of mass beyond the observable universe that is exercising a force on these clusters. It's rather beyond me the size of this mass you would have to have to be able to do all this. My mind is blown.

Kashlinsky named this phenomenon dark flow to reference dark energy and dark matter, two other great mysteries. Obviously of course, there is much research to do still and this might be a ginourmous coincidence. So, don't quote me. I just wanted to share an article.

Source: Astronomy January 2009 p.31

Anticipation

So to make a long story short yet concise yet full-of-all-that-you-would-need-to-know, I am preparing my skill set to partake in analyzing data for a post doc at the UW. What? Well to undergrads like myself they call that research. Cool, huh? I have to say I'm very nervous yet excited. I know that research is an important part of being an undergrad and grad in the sciences so I've been wondering how I was going to get started. Imagine my shock when all I had to do was talk to our (the Astronomy Dept.) friendly program advisor who then took me over to the faculty member with the work to be done! Whew!

What skill set am I preparing you ask? Well, I'm a Windows guy. I like PC's. To use the current cliche, I'm a PC. What I don't know very well are any things that use command lines and stuff that's behind the scenes without a friendly desktop and mouse to help me around. The data I'll be needing are accessible by Linux or programs similar to Linux (which is similar to Unix [you got me on what that is]). This faculty member, whose name is Lynne, got me a link to a crash course in Linux and I'm studying it like a fiend, trying to get good at it so I can start this project.

And the project is, you ask? Well Lynne was taking optical (visible light) data of a patch of asteroids in the Asteroid Belt and at nearly the same time, the Spitzer Space Telescope was taking an infrared (measures the heat of an object) picture of the same batch of asteroids. Now if you have either optical or infrared data on an object like an asteroid, it's difficult (not sure if its impossible) to determine its size. But, by combining both, you can determine the albedo, a measure of the reflectivity of the object and from that you can determine size. What you do with the info after that is ... up to someone else at this point I think.

There is my news for the week. That and I've been sick with a cold. I also just finished my math physics homework which was more tedious than anything I've done in about 4 months, which was when I had to move.