Life today versus Life 150 years ago (Part 2 of 2)
 |
| (Artwork by: Rob Gonsalves) |
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Life today versus Life 150 years ago (Part 1 of 2)
 |
| (Artwork by: Igor Morski) |
Adapting to Life Beyond Earth
 |
| (Photo by: Stefan Hefele) |
_____________________
SH: There’s this idea that the biosphere is in some way wonderfully hospitable for us, and that if we built a colony on Mars or some other place in the solar system, we’d be in a fundamentally different circumstance—and a perpetually hostile one.
That is an impressive misconception of our actual situation. You have a great quote where you say, “The earth no more provides us with a life-support system than it supplies us with radio telescopes.” Say a little more about that.
DD: Yes. So we evolved somewhere in East Africa in the Great Rift Valley. That was an environment that was particularly suited to having us evolve, and life there was sheer hell for humans. Nasty, brutish, and short doesn’t begin to describe how horrible it was, but we transformed it…or, rather, not actually our species.
Some of our predecessor species had already changed their environment by inventing things like clothes, fire, and weapons, and thereby made their lives much better but still horrible by our present-day standards.
Then they moved into environments such as Oxford, where I am now. It’s December. If I were here at this very location with no technology, I would die in a matter of hours, and nothing I could do would prevent that.
SH: So you are already an astronaut.
DD: Very much so.
SH: Your condition is as precarious as the condition of those in a well-established colony on Mars that can take certain technological advances for granted.
And there’s no reason to think that such a future beyond earth doesn’t await us, barring some catastrophe placed in our way, whether of our own making or not.
DD: Yes. And there’s another misconception there which is related to that misconception of the earth being hospitable, which is that applying knowledge takes effort. It’s creating knowledge that takes effort.
Applying knowledge is automatic. As soon as somebody invented the idea of, for example, wearing clothes, from then on the clothes automatically warmed them. It didn’t require any more effort.
Of course there would have been things wrong with the original clothes, such as that they rotted or something, and then people invented ways of making better clothes. But at any particular stage of knowledge, having got the knowledge, the rest is automatic.
And now we have invented things like mass production, unmanned factories, and so on. We take for granted that water gets to us from the water supply without anyone having to carry it laboriously on their heads in pots.
It doesn’t require effort. It just requires the knowledge of how to install the automatic system. Much of our life support is automatic, and every time we invent a better way of life support, we make it automatic.
So for the people on the moon—living in a lunar colony—keeping the vacuum away will not be a thing they think about. They’ll take that for granted. What they will be thinking about are new things. And the same on Mars, and the same in deep space.
5 Misconceptions of Science Everyone Should Know
This is tolerable given that we all have varied backgrounds and have studied different things. But I feel compelled to offer clarity in five areas that seem to endlessly provide confusion.
NUMBER 1: SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY
The purpose of science is to get a better grasp of reality. It is a process that attempts to produce the best explanations for what we observe. It is akin to charting new territory. You begin with a lot of guess work, mix in some trial and error, and ultimately you can produce a fairly reliable map of your surroundings.
The only real difference is that science is a never-ending cycle of observation and refinement – and this is a very important distinction. There is no level of absolute certainty in science.
If you’re in the city, you can be extremely certain the next thing you see coming down the road won’t be a wagon pulled by a pack of wild dogs – even though it's possible. You don’t have to be absolutely certain for it to be a reliable statement. Scientific knowledge works on the same basis. The aim of science is only to produce statements of varying degrees of certainty.
NUMBER 2: POSSIBLE AND PROBABLE ARE NOT THE SAME
Failure to recognize the disparity between what is possible and what is probable is one of the most fallacious slants against science.
Science by nature is very opened minded. The scientific method has discovered the structure of atoms and the essence of black holes – things that would otherwise seem completely implausible. But thinking scientifically is not about weighing every idea equally.
Discussing the likelihood of a wagon pulled by dogs passing through city streets is so improbable it shouldn’t even merit moment of your time. That’s not because you’re closed minded, it’s because there isn’t a single credible reason to consider the idea.
For the same reason, the application of science is not focused on what is possible. Anything is possible. Science is concerned only with ideas that offer demonstrable reasons to be considered probable.
NUMBER 3: “OBSERVE” DOES NOT MEAN “SEE”
If actually “seeing” an event was the only reason to believe something, then blind people would have no reason to believe anything. What is important here is to not mix up what is literally observable with what we can surmise.
If you should find a small hole near the bottom of your kitchen wall, some mouse droppings in your cupboards, and tiny mouse footprints spread across your floor, you don’t need to ever see a mouse to infer that you likely have one.
Like any crime scene investigation, you “observe” the evidence, interpret the facts, and if enough evidence exists, you arrive at an explanation of events. Your level of certainty varies directly with the amount of confirming evidence. This is the essence of science.
Like any crime scene investigation, you “observe” the evidence, interpret the facts, and if enough evidence exists, you arrive at an explanation of events. Your level of certainty varies directly with the amount of confirming evidence. This is the essence of science.
NUMBER 4: NOT ALL SCIENCE IS “ACCEPTED” SCIENCE
There are a lot of “scientific” ideas (those open to scientific study). The good ones are called hypotheses. With enough confirming evidence and successful testing by the scientific community, a good hypothesis can transition to scientific theory. As Einstein demonstrated when he overhauled Newtonian Physics, even the best scientific theories are not immune from revision or improvement.
A scientific theory is merely the best current explanation for the phenomena we observe that is accepted by the scientific community – in this sense, it is “accepted” science.
Many ideas currently being considered in the scientific community will prove to be wrong, but this in no way discredits science. Ideas have to begin somewhere, and a lot of them will often turn out to be bad ideas. This isn’t a detriment, it's merely part of the process of ultimately arriving at good ideas. As long as there are good reasons to consider a new idea, it's worthy of some discussion.
There is a huge difference between an idea that has some potential and one that is considered a scientific theory – they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum of certainty.
NUMBER 5: TRUST AND FAITH ARE NOT REQUIRED IN SCIENCE
Pretending to have answers gets you nowhere in the scientific community. Claims to superior knowledge are inconsequential. Personal charisma and good looks play no part. What is relevant is a willingness to have your ideas be scrutinized, thrashed, and proven false. The result is that no other process is as efficient at rooting out nonsense as the scientific method.
That isn’t to say that science is infallible (no credible scientist would ever suggest that), nor that it's void of corruption, motives, or bias. But any accepted idea has stood up to the scrutiny and rigorous testing of scientists from all over the world. That’s worth something, but you don’t have to trust any of it.
There is nothing about the scientific method that is based on any aspect of trust or faith – it is only concerned with what is demonstrable.
BONUS: A HANDFUL OF GREAT QUOTES ABOUT SCIENCE
“What makes a belief scientific isn’t whether it turns out to be true or not, but the process by which it is arrived at.” ~ James Hogan
“There are many aspects of the universe that still cannot be explained satisfactorily by science; but ignorance only implies ignorance that may someday be conquered. To surrender to ignorance has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” ~ Isaac Asimov
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers which can’t be questioned.” ~ Richard Feynman
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ~ Galileo Galilei
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.” ~ Carl Sagan
‘In searching for the truth and often questioning it, scholars, thinkers, philosophers, and scientists have immeasurably influenced our world. Their medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, physical laws, and mathematical principles have imposed order, coherence, and clarity on what once seemed a random, indiscriminate, and lawless world.” ~ Dennis Kimbro
"The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries." ~ Freeman Dyson
"Science is the acceptance of what works and the rejection of what does not. That needs more courage than we might think." ~ Jacob Bronowski
Traversing the Universe ~ A New Paradigm
It is always exciting to wake up to news that NASA has advanced their knowledge with a discovery of a new distant planet, particularly when they fall within what is known as the habitable zone. The implications are huge.
Of course, any excitement is often tempered by distance. As thrilling as it is to hear about the discovery of a new earthlike planet, when its located 490 light-years away you have to wonder what’s the point. Civilization isn’t going to see these worlds up close in any manner in the next millennium unless we discover ways to circumvent the current known laws of physics.
Yet leave it to Carl Sagan to inject an ounce of optimism into the situation. Consider Mars. According to space.com, even using the fastest spacecraft to date, it would require 150+ days to reach Mars. But this is only using our current paradigm of space travel in which vessels are essentially given a boost and then travel at a constant velocity. If we could find a way to propel a probe with continuous acceleration we could conceivably have probes reach places like Alpha Centauri in a matter of years, not millenia.
Here is Sagan’s explanation from his masterpiece Pale Blue Dot:
Imagine we could accelerate continuously at 1 g — what we’re comfortable with on good old terra firma — to the midpoint of our voyage, and decelerate continuously at 1 g until we arrive at our destination. It would take a day to get to Mars, a week and a half to Pluto, a year to the Oort Cloud, and a few years to the nearest stars.”
This would require a new propulsion system that does not yet exist, but if you are including technology from the near future there is reason for optimism. Another important consideration is that the laws of physics do not prevent us from developing probes the size of pins with all the necessary capabilities. This would change things considerably in terms of required energy levels to sustain constant acceleration.
So even though these unimaginable distances may cool a lot of enthusiasm, there are reasons to be genuinely optimistic about what we will find out in the near future.
Every new discovery represents new possibilities.
Supplemental Math
For those scratching their heads at this, the math supports Sagan’s quote.
For those scratching their heads at this, the math supports Sagan’s quote.
Mars at its closest is 55 million kilometers from earth and at its farthest is at 225 million kilometers. This is according to: http://www.universetoday.com/14841/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars/
Because the planets are in orbit, its not a straight shot. The fastest we’ve gotten anything to Mars was the Curiosity Lander which required going about 72 million kilometers.
The average velocity of the Curiosity Lander which traveled at a constant was 20,000 km/hour. As a result, it took 150 days for it to arrive (an initial boost through a near frictionless environment). The math supporting this is very basic:
Time = Distance / Rate
Time = 72 million km / (20 km/hour x 24 hours/day)
Time = 150 days
Time = 72 million km / (20 km/hour x 24 hours/day)
Time = 150 days
So if we want to check Sagan’s math, we need to run this calculation accounting for 1g of acceleration. Since the trip is symmetrical (1g for halfway there and -1g the other half) we can solve for half the distance and then double our result.
Acceleration of Gravity = 9.8 m/s/s
Time = sqrt ( 2 x Distance / Acceleration )
Time = sqrt (2 x 36 million km x 1000 km/m / 9.8 m/s/s )
Time = 85,714 seconds = 23.8 hours
Time = sqrt (2 x 36 million km x 1000 km/m / 9.8 m/s/s )
Time = 85,714 seconds = 23.8 hours
Thus is takes just under a day to reach halfway to Mars and the same for the second half making the total trip in under two days. Sagan said one day, but its clear his points stand on solid ground.
Pretty remarkable.
A Brief Thought Experiment ~ The Expanding Universe
The best way to conceptualize this is to imagine all the stars and galaxies on the edge of a rapidly expanding balloon. This is why we can now detect things that are 46 billion light years away from us despite the universe only being 13.8 billion years old (http://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html).
What is revealed to us with our most advanced instruments is limited to the speed of light, which is what makes up the observable universe. We can only speculate what is beyond this point.
With this in mind, at some point millions of years into the future, all the galaxies that we can now detect will have expanded beyond the reach of light. We will no longer see them or be able to detect them in any way under the known laws of physics. It will be as though they no longer exist.
What happens if life on another planet in a distant galaxy develops after this period of time? Suppose they reach the same level of scientific sophistication we have now. They could have all the equivalent methods, capabilities, and scientific understanding we have yet would amass entirely different data without ever knowing that something was missing.
What happens if life on another planet in a distant galaxy develops after this period of time? Suppose they reach the same level of scientific sophistication we have now. They could have all the equivalent methods, capabilities, and scientific understanding we have yet would amass entirely different data without ever knowing that something was missing.
In fact, for this future life form, all the best data would suggest they live in a single galaxy in the midst of an infinite empty space. Simply because of time, their understanding of the universe would be severely lacking yet perfectly credible given the circumstances.
WHAT iF we're that life form?
How do we even know what we might be missing? What information might no longer be available to us that would tell an entirely different story about the state of the universe?What if our questions about why the universe is expanding would have been obvious in a prior time?
The Value of Viewing Humanity with a Scientific Mindset
My seven year old son recently asked me what it means that all known life forms share a common ancestor.
It occurred to me how fascinating this revelation is, especially for those who have not read up on biology. So I decided to blow his mind.
”You know how our family tree works? Well if you were to go back far enough, you would find we are related to just about everyone.”
”But if you kept following the tree back,, say about 200 million years, you would find that you are actually related to the dog!”
Why you’re not Embracing SCIENCE Enough
The SCIENTIFIC PROCESS IS GROSSLY UNDERRATED…
…and I bet you don’t appreciate it nearly as much as you should. In fact, I will go as far as saying Science is so important and beneficial that its near scandalous if you give it anything less than giant praise.
How do I get away with saying that? Well, the facts overwhelming and clearly illustrate that the benefits of science are enormous – facts that you likely take for granted. Lets consider just a couple areas of benefit and see how much you agree.
3D Printers ~ The Next Singularity?
Imagine having a printer in your home capable of printing any of the physical items you need. For some, this may seem far fetched, but 3D printers are already capable of printing more than you may think.
Depth of Knowledge
For centuries mental disorders such as schizophrenia and epilepsy were a total mystery. Witnessing someone experiencing the then unknown effects of these disorders led to lots of confusion.
People were not just perplexed, they were afraid, and assumptions were made. As a result, in a lot of cultures people with epilepsy or schizophrenia were shunned and sometimes even thrown in prison. It was believed to be a sign of attack by demons or in other cases just witchcraft, an accusation that often lead to execution.
