Showing posts with label astronomy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label astronomy. Show all posts

Sunday, January 15, 2012

How big is the Universe?

Hello everyone, and sorry for the long time since my last post. Today I'll be giving an in-depth and unqualified analysis of current astronomy and cosmology. What I find interesting is the pace at which our knowledge of the universe's structure has developed.

1)Starting with ancient cultures, we have known or speculated that we live on a sphere ("Earth") nearby some other objects (the sun and planets), which are all surrounded by little twinkly lights (other stars). Assigning a date and person to this discovery is tricky, but a good guess is an African named Eratosthenes in Egypt, who measured the earth's diameter in ~200 BCE. He did this by noting that on the summer solstice, the sun shone exactly straight down in one city, but cast a shadow about 1/50th of a circle in another city. He knew the difference in the distance between the two cities, and using "math" he calculated the diameter of the earth. So the size of the known universe, in our understanding, was the earth's diameter: 12,800 km.

2)It wasn't until Johann Kepler in the 1600s that we were relatively confident that our Earth was not fixed, but was moving around the sun (and not the other way around). This had been hypothesized before, but only at that time had it been proven and accepted. This increased the size of the known universe to the diameter of the major axis of Saturn's orbit (then the furthest known planet): 1.4 billion km.

3)Even then, it wasn't until Frederich Bessel in 1838 that we confirmed that the other points of light in our sky are stars similar to our sun, and found the distances between them. He did this by measuring the angle of a "nearby" star against the background, further away stars as the earth moved in its orbit. Just like the two images from our eyes allow us to tell the distance to something, this parallax allowed us to calculate the distance to the stars. Until then the working theory was that they were unknown lights, possibly infinitely far away. Now the size of the known universe became the size of our galaxy: 950 million billion km.
4)Only in the twentieth century did we realize that our galaxy was not the entire universe, but merely one tiny, tiny piece of it. Edwin Hubble helped us realize this when he observed objects receding away from us much more quickly than the escape velocity of our galaxy, and this was later confirmed by measuring the brightness of certain standard objects (e.g. Cepheid Variables or Type 1a Supernovas) within those galaxies. This inflated our known universe to the distance between these "nearby" galaxies, about 60 billion billion km.

5) At about the same time, we discovered that the universe is expanding. Our perception of the size of the universe expanded with it, until in the 1960s we found the observational limit: a distance so far that the light has travelled for about 13-14 billion years. Wikipedia explains this barrier nicely:
In practice, we can see light only from as far back as the time of photon decoupling in the recombination epoch, which is when particles were first able to emit photons that were not quickly re-absorbed by other particles, before which the Universe was filled with a plasma opaque to photons. The collection of points in space at just the right distance so that photons emitted at the time of photon decoupling would be reaching us today form the surface of last scattering, and the photons emitted at the surface of last scattering are the ones we detect today as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).
Now, you might think that that means the limit of our observable universe is a sphere of diameter 13 billion light-years. However, because space itself has expanded during that time, the objects we are observing from 13 billion years ago are now much farther away, meaning the diameter of the observable universe is almost one million billion billion km.

5) And only very recently (1998) have we realized that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, a prediction which completely alters our view of the universe's fate. Current cosmological thinking has no estimate for the boundary of the universe. Our observable universe might be a tiny bubble in an infinite volume; the new estimate is literally "infinity until further notice".

Each of these five discoveries monumentally changed our understanding of the universe. Each time, the universe becomes monstrously larger than we had previously thought, and all of our assumptions become completely challenged. I have taken the liberty of tabulating the size of the "known universe" along with the date, for demonstration purposes:

datesize of known universe (km)note
200 BCE12,800diameter of the earth
16001,400,000,000size of our solar system
1838950,000,000,000,000,000diameter of our galaxy
192460,000,000,000,000,000,000size of our "local group" of galaxies
1960s1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000size of the observable universe
1998"literally infinity"astronomers give up

I observe that the rate of this growth as a function of time is not governed by any reasonable function, but might be considered to be logarithmic starting in 1600, with our known universe expanding by a factor of 10 every 24 years until recently, when astronomers simply gave up. This rate of growth (in understanding) is, I'm sorry, astronomical.

There are still so many unresolved questions about the nature of our universe. So-called "dark matter" is required to explain why galaxies spin the way they do, and it has been detected indirectly, but we still have no idea about its nature. If it exists, there is postulated to be five times as much of it, whatever it is, than "regular" matter. Things become stranger: in order to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, astronomers and cosmologists posit a "dark energy", an unknown force that would have to have 20 times as much "mass-energy" as observable mass in the universe. Mass-energy is the unit used because, as Einstein showed, energy can be converted into matter, or vice versa. If we converted all the dark energy into regular matter, there would be 20 times as much of it.

To butcher a quote by Socrates, "A wise man understands that he knows nothing." The more we study, the less we seem to understand. Maybe that's just the nature of the universe.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Drake's weakness



Every astronomer and science nerd has wondered: are we alone in the universe? One such nerd (or was he an astronomer?), Dr. Frank Drake, came up with the Drake Equation, which tries to estimate the number of detectable civilizations there are in the galaxy. Let's take a brief look at the equation:
1. The rate of star formation in our galaxy
2. The fraction of those stars with planets
3. The number of life-friendly planets around those stars
4. The fraction of life-friendly planets that develop life
5. The fraction of life-full planets that develop intelligence
6. The fraction of civilizations that broadcast detectably into space
7. The length of time such detectable civilizations exist

We are supposed to take the product of these seven terms, and that will tell us the number of detectable civilizations at any given time in our galaxy. But maybe you've noticed a certain earthling-centric bias built into this equation? It assumes that the only place life can exist is on a planet, near a star. Because that's exactly how we are. Now, let me assert that life could hypothetically take on many different forms. Instead of water-based life, we could have ammonia-based life. Instead of having cells, cell-less viruses might be considered alive. There was even a meme - I mean, fad - in the '80s in favor of Clay Theory, which hypothesized that a certain type of clay-based life might be possible, where drying stream-beds crystallize, and those crystals that work the best and kick up the most dust will infect the most other stream-beds. Crystals are just a pattern in the clay, but our own DNA and cells are just patterns of the same few elements. Consider the latest type of marketing, "viral videos". A company will make a funny/cool video promoting their product, then wait for college kids to stumble onto it and send it to each other like wild fire. The company pays almost nothing, but gets lots of exposure. The idea of the video can be said to be alive, living as a pattern on our computers and in our brains. And we infect each other just like the flu.

What I'm trying to get at is that other life can be startlingly different from us. We shouldn't expect that all life in the universe is on a little planet about this big, revolving about that far from a star about this size. What about bigger planets? Moons? Dust rings around stars? Inside stars themselves? Or even in cold, distant space? One of these in particular - life inside stars - seems to me to be the most plausible. The mass of all the planets in the universe is much much smaller than the mass of all the stars, and that mass is a lot hotter. We know that matter-based life requires at least some kind of energy or entropy, so in general, hotter is better.

But then again, I'm no astrobiologist.