Slashdot Mirror
Ask The Bad Astronomer
Astronomer, author, columnist, and successful populizer of science Phil Plait, perhaps best known as The Bad Astronomer, is a regular sight on Slashdot for his unusual ability to find lucid explanations of esoteric scientific claims and controversies. Phil has graciously agreed to answer Slashdot readers' questions, so ask him below about space, science, debunking conspiracy claims, and anything else that makes sense. Asking more than one question is fine (and encouraged!), but please separate unrelated questions into separate posts, lest your questions be moderated down.
You've been doing The Bad Astronomer thing for a while. How come you haven't become a better astronomer by now?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Why does matter exist? Why does energy exist?
Wouldn't it make more sense for the universe to be empty?
What do you see as contributing to a seemingly large wealth of misinformation about the sciences?
Also, do you agree or disagree with Slashdot's one question per post requirements?
What is the best way to combat pushers of psudeo-science like the Electric Universe?
Have you seen this series? What do you think about its conclusions?
What is the universe expanding into?
Which do you find more annoying.
Star Trek which can spend a good portion of the show trying to explain how and why they break the laws of physics.
or
Star Wars which breaks the laws of physics but doesn't care to explain themselves.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How can I make astrology buffs see the error of their ways? Barring that, what is the best way short of setting them on fire, to prevent them from entering an astronomy conversation?
There are a large number of light pollution articles to be found on the Sky and Telescope website. We amateur astronomers are keenly aware that light pollution isn't just about being able to see more stars from our backyard. Yet, when I mention the subject to friends, family, co-workers, etc, I often get a blank stare. "What's 'light pollution'?" What do you think can/should be done to improve widespread public awareness of light pollution and its effects?
The cake is a lie.
If you could give Apollo-level funding to a single NASA program, what would it be? Would you direct that money internally or involve private space companies?
Finally, what do you think of lunar-based observatories from a cost vs. performance standpoint?
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
What date and time will Eta Carinae go hyper-nova?
Given your unique position, I'd like to know your answer to this question:
What do you think is the currently a bigger threat to legitimate science:
- The growing wave of anti-intellectualism and anti-science that seemingly rejects science outright on certain issues
- Or the growing wave of pseudo-science that undercuts science by adopting the trappings of science but none of its procedures?
Thank you for your time.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
A question that's bugged me for years.
Whenever I've been shown a picture of any galaxy, I've noted a swirly thing as flat as a pancake.
My question: Why are galaxies "flat as a pancake"? If the universe arose from random gas clouds, I'd not expect stable swirling galaxies - at least not on every occasion... I'd have expected to see a cluster of bodies tumbling chaotically. What gives?
I've noticed a disturbing trend that as funding levels drop, agencies are receding more to their core areas of study and leaving interdisciplinary scientists high and dry. Furthermore, it seems that there's an inverse relationship between the fund-ability of a project and its efficiency: if a (say) particle physics project is so inefficient it requires 1000 scientists 10 years to get 1 bit of data (like the Top quark discovery) then they're guaranteed to have well-coordinated funding and lobbying effort, whereas projects that deliver results on only a shoestring budget might not have enough people working on them to get any funding at all.
I'm working at the interface between neuroscience and algorithm theory, and I've already made some very interesting discoveries using borrowed time/funding, but I have trouble shopping my ideas to either pure neuroscience/medical funding agencies (who don't understand the math) or to computer science funding agencies (who don't appreciate the biology). Both sides seem generally excited and encouraging, but neither is willing to fund my future research, since (despite a promising track record) I'm out of the expertise of anyone out there.
My question is, are we doomed to a future dominated by big science projects working in entrenched specialties on the least-efficient, longest-term, too-big-to-fail science investigations out there? If not, how do we promote efficient, small-scale, interdisciplinary project funding?
Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
How do you pronounce the name of the seventh planet from the Sun? I'm in favor of Futurama's solution: rename it to Urrectum.
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
With all the resurgence of hysteria due to 2012 as well as recent major earthquakes, pseudo-scientific explanations to otherwise natural phenomena are becoming the norm of the day.
One of the ones I've seen more lately are two:
1) The Schumman Resonance, commonly distorted to explain the upcoming "elevation of frequency" or the Earth entering into an "electromagnetic null zone" whatever that means.
2) The HAARP as a weapon to produce and trigger earthquakes.
If you could give us a set of precise and concise good shot answers that could help debunk those myths for the layman, it would greatly help to try to make people think more critically for a change... Thanks!
Do you see long term trends in various misconceptions?
It seems subjectively to me that the "vernal equinox egg" deal was WAY more popular in the 80s. Its a random variable on the timescale of a couple years.
Other misconceptions, like "the far side of the moon is always dark" or "the moon always rises at sunset and sets at sunrise" has a relatively constant rate of mis-belief over time.
Another type of misconception is the flash in the pan like the "face on mars" which gets intense media attention for awhile and then fades (permanently?) into obscurity.
Do you see any general trends in the distribution of the three types of misconceptions over time, like one getting more or less popular or ... maybe due to social media or something?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Another question is how to introduce astronomy to kids in developed counties, in areas where light pollution prevents them from seeing stars when they look up to the night's sky.
Phil,
I was recently reading through some of the '2012 hysteria' on your site and your affiliates... mostly responses to uneducated or superstitious people who've bought into the 'The End is Nigh' madness.
Since I grew up in a similar environment, I've also been watching the apocalyptic religious fervor surrounding people like Harold Camping with some horror.
My understanding is that this kind of thing tends to peak near century markers... 'End of the Century == End of the World', so theoretically, the silliness should be tapering off. Right?
What is your experience on this? Are we seeing a slowdown to the 'End of World' craziness, or is it going to get worse?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
In your opinion, what is more important during the next 50 years and why: sending humans or sending robots on 'exploration' type missions?
If our moon weren't tidally locked, would early cultures have entertained sooner the idea the Earth is round?
How serious is the amount of 'space junk' orbiting Earth? Will it have a substantial impact on the future of space flight, manned or otherwise? What are some of the best (or at least most innovative) ideas you've heard about for deorbiting big junk or cleaning up smaller bits of debris?
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
How long do we have to put up with the notion of "Dark Matter"? Whenever I research this, I come back to the "galactic rotation problem" as the most solid evidence. This discrepancy between prediction and observation is clearly rooted in the prediction being wrong. Keplers Laws do not apply to stars in galaxies. Hand waving and incorrect use of Gauss's Law have been going on for decades and we need it to stop. Why do people keep looking for "new physics" when they don't fully understand the physics we have?
Those shows should ABSOLUTELY exist - and they should be dedicated to debunking them as completely and unassailably as possible.
Spend the first third of the show explaining the myth; spend the next 2 thirds ripping it to pieces.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I enjoy gazing at the heavens sometimes but by no means would call myself an astronomer. Short of purchasing a telescope and driving out of the city, do you have any suggestions for 'naked eye' astronomy in an area of moderate light pollution?
In science a simple misconception can lead to thousands and millions of people being skeptical and disbelieving. For example the large number of people who think that humans evolved from chimpanzees rather than sharing a common ancestor.
In astronomy what misconception would you class as most dangerous to the general publics understanding?
Ever since I read Gary Taubes' "Bad Science," I've been unshakably convinced that cold fusion is an example of pathological science, and Pons/Fleischman's "room temperature fusion" was utter nonsense.
However, CF believers seems to soldier on year after year. As recently as 2009, the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center reported finding neutron bursts when using heavy water electrolysis, though their claims were not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
Has anything emerged since the debunking of Pons/Fleischmann that gives any credence to cold fusion?
And if you have the time...is there any future for muon-catalyzed fusion (which I understand is legitimate but falls far short of break even for energy production)?
Advice: on VPS providers
Next June, I plan to travel from Boston to Hawaii (probably Kauai) to view the transit of Venus. I can take a small (90mm mak cas) telescope and a solar filter, but trying to cope with airline carry-on luggage restrictions and get a 4" diameter, 10" long aluminum cylinder through airport security is going to be a pain. Can viewing the transit be done using a camera obscura technique like one might use for viewing a partial solar eclipse?
Is Bill Nye a worse astronomer than you?
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
While watching the panel you moderated at this year's TAM with Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Pamela Gay and Lawrence Krauss I noticed several instances of tension between Tyson and Krauss on issues like funding, cosmology and others things. The question is, is this a good thing or a bad thing? I ask because it appears science is assaulted from many sides and I wonder if internal strife helps or hinders progress?
What do you think is the answer to Fermi's question? That is, why do you think we see no signs of intelligent life other than humans?
Actually, we have, but we all decided that it would be best not to let you in on it.
Changa hates change.
I see this anti-dark matter / dark energy stuff a lot on Slashdot. It would be nice if Phil Plait could give a good explanation of the evidence.
Whenever I research this, I come back to the "galactic rotation problem" as the most solid evidence.
That isn't the most solid evidence. It was just the first evidence, and if it was the only evidence then Dark Matter would not be preferred over the idea of a modified gravitational theory. Since then there have been two major additional forms of evidence for dark matter. The first is gravitational lensing.
According to General Relativity, mass bends bends light that passes by it. We have measured this effect before with objects of known mass, and the predictions of GR are dead on. Astronomers have looked at how strongly light is bent when passing by large galaxies, and used this to compute the mass of the galaxy. The numbers they get are much greater than the mass of the visible material, and more importantly match up very closely with the estimates of dark matter mass obtained by looking at rotational curves.
The most outstanding evidence of this is from the Bullet Cluster. Here two galaxies had passed through each other, and you can see how the different types of matter were slowed down by different amounts depending on how likely they were to collide. The gas clouds were slowed the most, and the large structures (stars, etc) slowed down less. But if you look at the gravitational lensing, you see that there is a big chunk of non-visible mass that was not slowed down by the collision at all. This is exactly what you would expect to see if the galaxies contained non-baryonic dark matter, and can't be explained by modified gravity at all.
The second major evidence is the cosmic microwave background radiation. I don't pretend to understand this, and thus won't try to expound, except to note that the ratio of baryonic matter to non-baryonic matter found using the CMBR also agrees with the dark matter estimates found using galaxy rotation curves and gravitational lensing.
So we have three drastically different ways of indirectly measuring the same thing, and they all come up with the same result. That is pretty strong evidence in my book.
How long do we have to put up with the notion of "Dark Matter"?
My guess is quite a long time, because it is almost certainly correct. Hopefully though, we will have direct evidence of dark matter with the next few decades, which should make it less annoying :)
If one views UFO's as a mystery instead of as "aliens", do you think there's a legitimate case for further study, even if it may only produce psychology lessons?
Reliable pilot and passenger witnesses have seen "flying disks" in broad daylight up close, for example. I'd like to know what triggered that perception if it's not "real".
Table-ized A.I.
Please give me the one simple proof that I can tell my wife that she will finally believe that we actually went to the moon!
Everywhere I look it seems that large astronomical instruments are being shut down. Here in Australia I've learnt that the Parkes Radio Telescope is in imminent danger, and one scientific institution gave away a 1m telescope to an amateur so that it would no longer need to be funded. Clearly science funding in general and astronomy funding in particular is in crisis with such instruments, that took decades to realize, being dumped unceremoniously. The usual excuse is the economy but the truth is that there have been darker days. While amateur equipment has gotten remarkably capable and affordable it's not going to replace world class instruments any time soon. What do you think can be done about funding, so that the next couple of generations can continue to make discoveries?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Do you support finishing the JWST which is now substantially behind schedule and over budget? (I realize that many of the problems were caused by Congress but unfortunately that's where we are today). What about if a substantial amount of the money needed to complete it is taken out of other astronomy related programs? :(
If you had to choose a major (Discovery?) class probe to look for life beyond earth which celestial body would you send it to?
Mars (methane outgassing?)
Europa (subsurface ocean?)
Enceladus (water "fountains"?)
Titan (liquid water, ammonium, hydrocarbon ocean?)
Are you familiar with Peter Ward's book "Life but not as we know it" in which he makes a strong case for Titan? Do you agree?
Any chance of ever bringing back your Mad Scientist section, where you do a Q&A sort of like the Straight Dope, only with generally more Astronomy related topics? That's the particular feature that caused me to discover your site in the first place.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I mean, really.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You've made you're position fairly clear on whether the current recent warming trend in global temperature is anthropogenic. My question is: do you think a mere reduction in (or cessation of) anthropic CO2 emissions will significantly reduce this trend, and whether larger scale geoengineering is an inevitable requirement to maintain the abnormally long stable warm period that humanity has thrived in for the last few millennia?
And i'm strictly a layman sky gazer so apologies if I don't use the right terminology. 1.-What would you say our risk level for NEOs is? I know we make fun of the Naburu or whatever that crazy rogue planet thing is called but last I heard we had only mapped about 2% of the sky and with all that space it does make me wonder if we would actually see a NEO that was a danger before it was too late to do anything, and as a follow up 2.- If we were to spot a NEO that was a danger do you believe we could divert it with our current technology, if so how so? Gravity tractor, using nukes as shockwaves to divert, maybe solar sails? How far away would the NEO have to be detected at for these to work?
Again I apologize if I didn't use the exact terminology, just an average Joe who like looking at the stars and Jupiter through a friend's 6 foot telescope and these things I have been wondering. Thanks for your time and keep up with the debunking!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Having read today that some astronomers claim to have resolved the discrepancy between the giant nebula surrounding the oldest observed supernova (by Chinese astronomers) is there any chance that that supernova could've been responsible for the star of Bethlehem?
According to the biblical narrative, it "travelled before them" and came to a stop over Bethlehem. That would be funny behavior for a supernova.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A genie appears and offers you one true yes/no answer to any question you ask (subject, perhaps, to xkcd rules). What would you ask?
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
E.g., will we have colonies on other planets? Other star systems? Will we have robots/AI/cyborgs? Will we have a high tech world? Low tech? Nox tech?
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
everyone talks about hubble, but what's your take on the cost/benefit of the shuttle program? would the money have been better spent launching more voyagers/cassinis/new horizonses? were there hidden benefits to astronomy from the program?
If I stand on the north pole and look "up" with a powerful enough telescope I'll be able to see objects that are roughly 10-12 billion light-years away. If I do the same thing on the south pole and look in the opposite direction I'll also see objects that are as far. Yet these objects cannot be 20-24 billion light-years away from each other since the universe isn't old enough for them to go that far. What I am not understanding?
Way back when I was a freshman in college I was considering a carrier in astronomy and physics, but I opted for the more flashy and showy job of application development. Is there room for hobby astronomers to contribute in a meaningful way to the global community, or should I stick with the crowd-sourcing projects on https://www.zooniverse.org/ ?
In your book Death from the Skies, you mentioned that about 4 billion years ago the sun was like half as hot as it is now, and in 4 billion years it will be twice as hot as it is now (I hope I got that right). Is it possible then that a few billion years ago when the sun was "cooler" Venus was a nicer place where life could actually exist? and then in a few billion years when the Earth gets hot from the increased brightness, Mars will be a better place for life to exist?
We're always hearing about threats to our planet from outer space. Asteroid impacts Gamma Ray bursts. Invaders from Mars. The list goes on. What do you think is our biggest threat from space, and why?
I just had an interesting argument with a coworker. The point: while he can accept that space-based telescopes would be able to do direct imaging of extra solar planets --assuming that they can directly capture the photons traveling across all the involved light-years without interference-- he just doesnt believe that is possible to image those planets from the Earth surface, given atmospheric interference. He says that the images from Hawaii and other Earth observatories are just software interpolations that try to "guess" and "process" (his words) the anomalies in the images as planets... in other words, they are unintentionally "photoshopped" (again, his word). The basic question would be, then: how can a telescope inside our atmosphere be able to "take pictures" of something as faint as extrasolar planets?
I just watched the recent TAM 9 from las vegas and in it Lawrence Krauss states that the JWST would not help us find more about dark energy but unfortunately does not go on to explain why due to time constraints. This question has been eating away at me, could you explain why the JWST wouldn't help us learn more about Dark Energy, or at least what Krauss's argument might be that it wouldn't. Thanks!
Phil,
In January of '09, The BBC ran a story on research done by scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Using the VLBA they found what they felt was very good evidence that our galaxy is about the same size as Andromeda (150k ly). However, very few of their fellow astronomers, including you, are touting this new size. Why? Was the study flawed?