Slashdot Mirror
Listen To The Universe On Your iPod
ptorrone writes "The New York Times had a great story about Dr. Mark Whittle, a professor of astronomy at the University of Virginia who has taken the cosmic background radiation of the universe and made a series of sounds. The folks over at Engadget made the sounds available in MP3s so you can listen to them on your computer, iPod or whatever. Also, If you'd like to read more about Dr. Mark Whittle's work visit his site, there are a lot of presentations and information regarding Big Bang Acoustics."
"listen to the universo on your computer"
or
"listen to the universo on your MP3-player"
There is nothing in this story that requires mentioning an iPod. And frankly all the plugs on slashdot are getting a bit tiring.
Some massaging of the data was needed...Dr. Whittle shifted the sounds to the human audible range, producing a chord like the sound of a jet engine. He used computer models to generate the cosmic chords from creation for the first million years and condensed them to five seconds.
I don't know much about sound, but this seems odd to me...if he's editing it this much, at what point is the guy just making his own music?
---
Adult Toys
I'm always torn about trying to explain science to the masses, since they're clearly too dumb/uninterested to ever truly understand.
Have you ever considered that few people would want to listen to someone who starts out with that attitude about them?
I work with a project that places cosmic ray detectors in schools. The goals are both scientific and educational. I have had school security people drop by after their shift to talk and learn more about what we're doing. This - making science accessible and interesting to people - is one of the most rewarding parts of my work. You might be surprised how much "the average joe" can grasp, given the opportunity and the right resources.
Is it worth it to only give them half the facts?
No one is dishing out half-truths. All the relevant information is there. In the original article it clearly states:
I have never seen a similar presentation that didn't include some explanation of how it was done and what the relationship to the original data is.
It seems to me like you are asking, "Is it worth trying to disseminate interesting science even though it might be only partially understood?" To that my answer is that getting some of the information across is enough to make science outreach a worthwhile excercise.
I think it is more important to find creative and interesting ways of engaging people in science than making sure they've got all the facts straight right away. After all, if they you can get someone's interest, they will be motivated to learn more, and then any original misconceptions can be disspelled. If you start out expecting people to learn science by picking up the nearest Astrophysical Journal, it just won't happen.
Don't forget, it's legislators who only understand half the facts that cause most of the problems that
Again - more information, not less, is the answer. There's nothing wrong with presenting data any way you feel like it, as long as you explain what you did. If more scientists were working to publicize their research like this guy is, maybe everyone, politicians included, would realize that science is not something which is the exclusive domain of the specialists in ivory towers. When science is accessible, I think people are more likely to feel that it is of true value, and hence more willing to fund it with their tax dollars.