Words

Painting pictures of astronomical objects

I’m writing a review for American Scientist magazine of two recent physics books for general audiences: Lisa Randall’s Warped Passages and Michio Kaku’s Parallel Worlds. Lisa’s book is a great look at the details of how we come up with crazy ideas like brane worlds by working through attempts to understand particle physics — extremely rewarding for an interested reader, and I hope to say more about it later. I have mixed feelings about Kaku’s book, but one undeniable feature is the large number of interesting stories he relates.

One of the stories is about Vera Rubin, one of the discoverers of dark matter.

rotation curve

Rubin observed the rotation curves of spiral galaxies — the rate at which stars moved around the galactic center, considered as a function of the distance from that center. You would think that the velocity would diminish as you got farther away from the massive galaxy, but in fact it doesn’t — Rubin found that rotation curves were flat, implying a greater gravitational field than can be explained by the visible matter. From Kaku’s book, a story that originally appeared in Ken Croswell’s The Universe at Midnight:

Vera Rubin was ignored, in part because she was a woman. With a certain amount of pain, she recalls that, when she applied to Swarthmore College as a science major and casually told the admissions officer that she liked to paint, the interviewer said, “Have you ever considered a career in which you paint pictures of astronomical objects?” She recalled, “That became a tag line in my family: for many years, whenever anything went wrong for anyone, we said, ‘Have you ever considered a career in which you paint pictures of astronomical objects?'” When she told her high school physics teacher that she got accepted to Vassar, he replied, “You should do okay as long as you stay away from science.” She would later recall, “It takes an enormous amount of self-esteem to listen to things like that and not be demolished.”

Vera Rubin

Vera Rubin, with DTM image tube spectrograph attached to the Kitt Peak 84-inch telescope, 1970. Images from Department of Terrestrial Magnetism of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Painting pictures of astronomical objects Read More »

16 Comments

Remind me not to mess with John Banville

A smackdown in the Letters section of the June 23, 2005 New York Review of Books:

To the Editors:

I don’t agree with John Banville’s judgment that “Saturday is a dismayingly bad book” [NYR, May 26], and I have to wonder whether we are reading the same book (has the American edition, perhaps, been modified from that published in the UK in January by Jonathan Cape?).

Banville writes: “Perowne goes on to his squash game, which he manages to win despite the fright he has endured and the punch in the sternum that Baxter delivered him.” And later, “having thrashed his squash opponent, Perowne returns to the arts of peace.”

In the squash game, as published in the UK, at seventeen pages’ length, Perowne loses.

John Sutherland
Lord Northcliffe Professor Emeritus
Department of English
University College, London

John Banville replies:

Summoned, one shuffles guiltily into the Department of Trivia. I have no knowledge of, and care nothing for, the game of squash. Having read Ian McEwan’s description of the match between Perowne and his American friend, all seventeen pages of it, I formed the notion that after a shaky start, and despite his experiences in the morning–traffic accident, encounter with thug, punch in the chest, etc.–Perowne managed to outplay his opponent, who, however, deprived him of what he clearly considered a victory by demanding a let or somesuch–as I say, I am ignorant in these matters, and McEwan’s account of the game made me no wiser, due no doubt to my sluggish comprehension rather than his powers of description. Perowne seemed to regard his opponent’s maneuver as not cheating, exactly, but certainly a less than generous broadening of a very fine line, although he did grudgingly consent to go on playing and lost, something which obviously meant more to him than it did to me. One concludes that there are no moral victories in sport, an activity which, as in a letter to an editor, it is easy to score by a technicality.

Remind me not to mess with John Banville Read More »

1 Comment

Not Even Wrong

Peter Woit, noted blogger and string-theory gadfly, has written a book about his objections to string theory: Not Even Wrong, to be published next year by Jonathan Cape.

Good. I completely disagree with Peter’s opinions about string theory, and think that his accusations that the Landscape is non-scientific are completely off the mark. But his objections are not crazy, and his dislike for the theory is grounded in an informed scientific judgement. (Sometimes more than others, but that’s a matter of personal opinion.)

The whole discussion is a nice contrast with the Intelligent Design mess. The fact is, we don’t know what is the correct theory that unifies particle physics with gravitation. String theory is far and away the leading candidate, but its status as leader is a reflection of the educated judgement of the experts, not any airtight evidence. This judgement comes from looking at various pieces of information — what we know about gravitation, and quantum mechanics, and particle physics, and the history of ideas in physics, and the mathematical structures underlying gauge theory and general relativity, as well as an intuitive feeling for what principles are most important and what clues most worth pursuing — and deciding which path toward progress is likely to be fruitful. When people like Peter (or Lee Smolin) read these tea leaves, they come to a different conclusion than most scientists in the field. But it’s healthy disagreement among professionals working at the edge of what we know and don’t know — not politically-motivated intervention from people who have no clue, just an agenda, and operate completely apart from the scientific mainstream. To people looking in from the outside, I hope an accurate picture comes across: there is a widespread feeling that string theory is the best hope for a quantum theory of gravity, but it’s not a settled issue, and we’re working in good faith on moving forward.

So I’m happy to see this side of the argument represented in the popular press, even if I disagree — we shouldn’t be afraid of the free market of ideas. If people don’t agree, they should explain the sources of their disagreement rationally. There is always the danger of misprepresentation of course, and in this case there is an obvious worry — that a spate of stories will appear about how string theory is in trouble, and a house built on sand, and so forth. That might be true, but certainly isn’t the impression I have from talking to string theorists. In any event, I hope that we defenders of the theory can stick to the high road, and welcome this intervention in the discussion of these important ideas.

Not Even Wrong Read More »

75 Comments

The Republican War on Science

I finally received my copy of Chris Mooney’s new book, The Republican War on Science. Chris is a longtime blogger at The Intersection, now also blogging at ScienceGate. I guess you can figure out from the title what the book is about. Here’s what Neal Lane says on the back cover:

A careful reading of this well-researched and richly referenced work should remove any doubt that, at the highest levels of government, ideology is being advanced in the name of science, at great disservice to the American people.

Lane was the White House Science Advisor under Clinton, as well as former director of the National Science Foundation, so he knows what he’s talking about.

I’ll wait until I’ve actually read the book to offer any opinions. The funny thing to me was a few months ago, when I was told that I’d be receiving a complimentary media-review copy of the book. I figured it must have been some kind of mistake; I’m not the media, I’m a highly-trained expert to whom the media comes when they want deep insights into the important cosmological issues of the day. But no, apparently I am now the media (or at least part of it), thanks to this blogging thing. I feel tawdry somehow, but I suppose one gets used to it. (Some of my best friends are in the media.)

The Republican War on Science Read More »

19 Comments

Friday random poetry

Lauren, keeper of the Friday Random Ten (or is it Roxanne? I can never remember), has hit upon a new bit of randomness on which to end your week: Rob’s Amazing Poem Generator. This poem came from the post on What people should know, comments included. I edited it slightly, for which I make no apologies.

What is far the Science
educator, I first
took as a course
contained all the atmosphere
Out which end this
in keeping with a different rest
my major religions
the immediate purpose of undergrads.
Let me a few hours downloading a
great organization, devoted to gather up
else if it’s
dogma,
They succeed in the Advancement of this
looking for good information
on science. simpler to be
seeing how science
is that
cloudy nights seem to get an embarassment
in the controversy.
cow methane. emitted from the physics students
to go a long way and come out
as you, but
publicly the real Nobody questions that.

Friday random poetry Read More »

5 Comments

Minus numbers

Bad Blood by literary critic Lorna Sage is a memoir of her postwar childhood in a poor Welsh village. It’s full of memorable and quotable passages; this is just one of the paragraphs that struck me.

Lorna Sage Hanmer school left its mark on my mental life, though. For instance, one day in a grammar school maths lesson I got into a crying jag over the notion of minus numbers. Minus one threw out my universe, it couldn’t exist, I couldn’t understand it. This, I realised tearfully, under coaxing from an amused (and mildly amazed) teacher, was because I thought numbers were things. In fact, cabbages. We’d been taught in Miss Myra’s class to do addition and subtraction by imagining more cabbages and fewer cabbages. Every time I did mental arithmetic I was juggling ghostly vegetables in my head. And when I tried to think of minus one I was trying to imagine an anti-cabbage, an anti-matter cabbage, which was as hard as conceiving of an alternative universe.

The power of abstraction that allows us to contemplate negative numbers shouldn’t be taken for granted; it’s downright miraculous. And the “alternative universe” comparison is spot on — the difference between imagining the existence of negative numbers and imagining the existence of extra dimensions of space is one of degree, not of kind.

To indulge in some pop evolutionary psychology (a bad habit, I admit), I can’t help but wonder whether our faculty of abstract mathematical reasoning is somehow related to the development of grammar. One of the more intriguing parts of Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct is where he suggests that the important difference between humans and other species resides in grammar, and in particular in the subjunctive mood. We can speak in counterfactuals, and make statements of the form “If X had been the case, Y would have happened instead of Z.” An incredibly useful skill, allowing human beings to contract with each other in arbitrarily complicated ways, and therefore opening up the possibility of laws and morality and all that.

Best of all, it allows for math. It doesn’t seem such a great leap from speaking about situations that are not the case to speaking about quantities that can’t exist, abstracting from a certain set of cabbages to the general notion of “numbers.” And once you’re there, it’s a short distance to negative numbers, and imaginary numbers aren’t far behind. Pretty soon you’re talking confidently about the Riemann hypothesis and category theory, and people know not to invite you to cocktail parties.

Minus numbers Read More »

14 Comments

Cosmic Gall

I figured, for the first poem on the new blog, why not go for something topical? By John Updike.

Neutrinos they are very small.
They have no charge and have no mass
And do not interact at all.
The earth is just a silly ball
To them, through which they simply pass,
Like dustmaids down a drafty hall
Or photons through a sheet of glass.
They snub the most exquisite gas,
Ignore the most substantial wall,
Cold-shoulder steel and sounding brass,
Insult the stallion in his stall,
And, scorning barriers of class,
Infiltrate you and me! Like tall
And painless guillotines, they fall
Down through our heads into the grass.
At night, they enter at Nepal
And pierce the lover and his lass
From underneath the bed — you call
It wonderful; I call it crass.

Of course, we now know that they do have mass; fortunately, poetry does not have a tradition of submitting errata.

Cosmic Gall Read More »

13 Comments
Scroll to Top