Encyclopedia Galactica

I was an undergraduate when the original Cosmos first aired.

It was back in 1980, and I still remember being blown away by it all -- the melding of science with animation and gorgeous music, and Carl Sagan's lyrical, almost poetic way of expressing his enduring love for astronomy.  My friends and I always waited excitedly for the next episode to air, and the day afterward spent an inordinate amount of time chatting about what we'd learned.

One of the episodes that resonated the most strongly with me was entitled "Encyclopedia Galactica."  Sagan predicted a day when we'd know so much about the universe that we'd have an encyclopedia of alien planets, each page of which would be accompanied by a list of their physical characteristics -- and types of life forms.  He was unequivocal in his belief that we were not alone in the universe, and that in fact life would turn out to be common.  Not, perhaps, "life as we know it, Jim" -- and much of it almost certainly pre-technological -- but life, he thought, would turn out to be pretty much everywhere we looked.

In the forty-five years since it aired, our detecting equipment has gotten better and better, but we're still up against the Fermi Paradox -- that famous quip from physicist Enrico Fermi who, when told that life was likely to be common in the universe, said, "Then where is everybody?"  Long-time readers of Skeptophilia may recall that a few years ago I did a deeper dive into the Fermi Paradox and the infamous "three f's," but the fact remains that despite getting better and better at astronomy and astrophysics, we still have no incontrovertible evidence of extraterrestrial life (intelligent or otherwise).

But extrasolar planets?  Those are kind of a dime a dozen.  As of this month, there have been a bit over six thousand exoplanets conclusively identified, and some of them have challenged our models of what planets can be.  (I took a look at a few of the weirder ones in a post earlier this year.)  So even if we don't yet have aliens in our back yard, there's been a lot of really cool information discovered -- three examples of which have just come out in the past couple of weeks.

No Andorians yet, more's the pity.

The first is about the TRAPPIST-1 system, which was one of the first multi-planet systems discovered.  Not only that, it has four planets in the "Goldilocks zone" -- the region around the host star that is "just right" for having temperatures where water could be in its liquid state.  (This doesn't mean there is water; just that if other factors were favorable, there could be liquid water.)  Not only that, but we lucked out that TRAPPIST-1 is fairly close (a little over forty light years away, in the constellation of Aquarius), and that its planets' orbits are aligned so that from our perspective, they cross in front of their host star, allowing astrophysicists to use the transits to take a stab at the composition of their atmospheres.

The outstanding YouTuber Dr. Becky Smethurst did a wonderful video explaining how this all works (and why the planet TRAPPIST-1d probably doesn't have an atmosphere), but a capsule summary is that when the planet passes in front of the star, its light passes through the planet's atmosphere (if it has one), and any gases present absorb and scatter characteristic frequencies of light.  Compared to the unobstructed spectrum of the star, those frequencies are then missing (or at least diminished in intensity), and from that information astrophysicists can deduce what might be present in the atmosphere.

Well, the other three planets in the habitable zone -- TRAPPIST-1b, c, and d -- have pretty conclusively been shown to lack an atmosphere.  So it all hinges on 1e, the farthest one out, and a study at the University of Bristol, using data from the James Webb Space Telescope, has said that it cannot rule out the presence of an atmosphere on that one.  Not a ringing endorsement, that, but at least not a categorical no -- so we'll keep our eyes on TRAPPIST-1e and hope future studies will give us good news.

The other two stories are about "rogue exoplanets" -- planets out there floating in space that don't (or at least, don't now) orbit a star.  Whether they formed that way, or started out in a stellar system and then were ejected gravitationally, is unknown (and may well be different in different cases).  These, for obvious reasons, are considered poor candidates for life, but they still are pretty amazing -- and the fact that we know about them at all is a tribute to our vastly improved ability to detect objects out there in interstellar space.

The first one, CHA-1107-7626, is currently accreting material like mad -- something not seen before in an exoplanet, rogue or otherwise.  It is estimated to be between five and ten times the mass of Jupiter, so on the verge of being a "brown dwarf" -- a superplanet that has sufficient mass and pressure to fuse deuterium but not hydrogen.  They emit more energy than they absorb, but don't quite have enough for the nuclear furnace to turn on in a big way.

But if CHA-1107-7626 keeps going the way its going, it may get there.  It's hoovering up an estimated Jupiter's worth of material every ten million years or so, which is the largest accretion rate of any planet-sized object ever observed.  So what we might be witnessing is the very earliest stages of the formation of a new star.

The final study is about the rogue exoplanet SIMP-0136, which came out of Trinity College Dublin and again uses data from JWST.  But this exoplanet is bizarre for two different reasons -- it has vast storms of what amounts to liquid droplets of sand... and it has auroras.

Once again, I'm staggered by the fact that we could detect this from so far away.  The temperature of the surface of the planet is around 1,500 C -- hotter than my kiln at full throttle -- and it has three hundred kilometer per hour winds that blow around bits of molten silica.  But most peculiar of all, the planet's atmosphere shows the characteristic polar light flashes we see down here as auroras.

What's weirdest about that is that -- at least on Earth -- auroras are caused by solar activity, and this planet isn't orbiting a star.  The way they form down here is that the solar wind ionizes gases in the upper atmosphere, and when those ions grab electrons, and the electrons descend back to the ground level, they emit characteristic frequencies of light (the same ones, not coincidentally, that are swiped by gases in the atmospheres of planets during transits).  Red for monoatomic oxygen, green for diatomic oxygen, blue for molecular nitrogen, and so on.

What is ionizing the gases on SIMP-0136?  Astrophysicists aren't sure.  Sandstorms here on Earth can certainly cause static electrical discharges (what we laypeople refer to as "bigass lightning bolts"), so it's possible we're seeing the light emitted from interactions between the molten silica and whatever gases make up the planet's atmosphere.  But it's too soon to be sure.

So even if we haven't yet discovered Skithra or Slitheen or Sontarans or whatnot, we're still adding some pretty amazing things to our Encyclopedia Galactica.  Carl Sagan, as usual, was prescient.  As he put it, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."

****************************************

Color my world

When you think about it, color perception is really strange.

Just about all of us have wondered whether we all see colors the same way -- if, for example, what you see as blue is the same as what I see as yellow, but we both identify them using the same word because there's no way to know we're not seeing them the same way.  I've always thought that unlikely.  After all, with few exceptions (other than genetic or structural abnormalities, about which q. v.) our eyes and brain are all built on the same basic plan.  I guess it's possible that we each see the world's colors differently, but the most parsimonious explanation is that because the underlying structures are the same, we're all pretty much perceiving identical color palettes.

Of course, there's no way to know for certain, and I ran into two things just in the last couple of days that leave me wondering.

The first is a curious conversation I had with my friend, the awesome writer Andrew Butters, whose books -- especially the staggeringly good Known Order Girls -- should be on everyone's TBR list.  It started out with an amusing discussion of words that sound like they should mean something else.  One of Andrew's was ambulatory, which to him sounds like "someone who is so incapacitated they need an ambulance."  I personally believe that pulchritude should mean "something that makes you want to puke," and not what it actually does, which is "beauty."  And then Andrew mentioned that he always thought the color words vermilion and chartreuse were wrong, and in fact backwards -- that vermilion should mean a light green and chartreuse a bright orangey-red.

This struck me as really weird, because those two words have never given me that sense.  This may be because I've known them both since I was little.  I knew vermilion because I grew up a mile away from Vermilion Bayou, so named because the red mud of southern Louisiana stains the water reddish brown.  Chartreuse I knew because my grandma's employer, Father John Kemps, was an eccentric, bookish, cigar-smoking Dutch expat who was very fond of a post-meal tipple and loved chartreuse, the pale green herbal French liqueur from which the color got its name.

So I asked Andrew where his misapprehension came from.  He said he wasn't sure, but that perhaps the vermilion one came from the French vert (green); Andrew, like most Canadians, is English-French bilingual.  But where his thinking chartreuse should mean "red" came from, he had no idea.

What baffled me further, though, was when he pointed out that he's not alone in this.  There's a whole page on Reddit about thinking that vermilion and chartreuse are backwards, and an astonishing number of people chimed in to say, "Yeah, me too!"  So why those particular words, and not another pair?  Why not citron and azure, or something?

The second is that I'm finally getting around to reading Oliver Sacks's book An Anthropologist on Mars, which has to do with the intersection between neurological disorders and creativity.  The very first chapter is about a painter who was in a car accident that resulted in brain damage causing cerebral achromotopsia -- complete colorblindness due not to abnormalities in the cones of the retina, but because of damage to a region of the brain called the V4 prestriate cortex.  Afterward, he saw the world in shades of gray -- but with some distinct oddities, because pure white surfaces looked "dirty" or "smudged" to him, red looked black, and blue looked a pale gray.

This brought up an interesting discussion about how we see color in the first place, and that color perception (even within a single, normally-sighted individual) isn't absolute, but comparative; we assess the color value of a region by comparison to the entire visual field.  If the whole "what color is this dress?" thing that was going around a few years ago didn't convince you of that, try this one out:

Every one of these spheres is exactly the same color; they were, in fact, cut-and-pasted from a single image.  The only thing that differs is the color of the foreground stripes that cross each one.  But since your eyes judge color based on context, it's impossible to see them as the same even once you cognitively know what's going on.

Don't believe it?  If you go to the link provided, the article author (the wonderful Phil Plait) created an animation that cycles between the image with and without the stripes.  It's mind-blowing.

All of this circles around to the weird topic of synesthesia, which is a still-unexplained sensory phenomenon where people have a sort of cross-wiring between two senses.  Russian composer Alexander Scriabin was a synesthete, who experienced sensations of colors when he heard chords; C# minor, for example, looked a bright emerald green.  (If you want to find out more, the amazing book by Richard Cytowic, The Man Who Tasted Shapes, is still considered one of the seminal works on this odd disorder.)

I wonder if what Andrew (and the others with the vermilion-chartreuse switch) are experiencing is a form of synesthesia.  A former student of mine is a synesthete for whom printed letters (and whole words) evoke sensations of colors, so his word choices while writing took into account whether the colors were harmonious, not just that the words made semantic sense.  (I hasten to add that he was and is one of the most brilliant people I've ever known, so his synesthesia didn't cause his writing to lack any clarity to non-synesthetes like myself -- although it has been known to slow him down as he struggled to find words that satisfied both meaning and appearance.)  So perhaps the "vermilion = light green" thing comes from the fact that for Andrew and the others on the Reddit page, the word looks green irrespective of its association with an actual (different) color.

What I find odd still, though, is that so many people have those two particular color words backwards.  Synesthesia is remarkably individual; while one of its hallmarks is a complete consistency within a particular person (Scriabin always saw C# minor as green, for example), it varies greatly from person to person.  The fact that vermilion and chartreuse are reversed for so many people is just plain peculiar.

So there's still a lot we don't know about how exactly we perceive color, and maybe my "parsimonious" explanation that (other than those with colorblindness, synesthesia, and other visual disorders) we're all seeing colors more or less the same way fails to capture the complexity of the real world.  Wouldn't be the first time I've thought things were simpler than they turned out to be.  Maybe it's just my perception because I'm a non-synesthete with intact color vision.

But until we're somehow able to see things through someone else's eyes and brain, that's a limitation I can't escape except for in my imagination.

****************************************

Anomaly analysis

I try to be tolerant of people's foibles, but one thing that annoys the absolute hell out of me is when someone is obviously ignorant of the basic facts of a subject, and yet expects everyone to treat their opinion about it as if it had merit.

It's why "the Big Bang means nothing exploded and made everything" (cosmology) and "why are there still monkeys?" (evolutionary biology) both make me see red almost instantaneously.  Fer cryin' in the sink, if you're going to talk about something, at least take the five minutes it requires to read the fucking Wikipedia page on the topic first.  Yes, I suppose you're "entitled to your opinion" regardless, but I'm in no way required to treat such idiocy as if it were Stephen Hawking levels of brilliance.

I mean, I have a lot of faults, but one thing I try to avoid is pontificating on subjects about which I am ignorant.  I have a pretty good idea of the limits of my own knowledge, and I am unhesitating in saying, "Sorry, I don't know enough to comment about that."

It's really not that hard to say.  Try it, you'll see.

What brings this whole infuriating subject up is all the people who weighed in on something that is honestly a very cool piece of research, which came out in the journal Geophysical Research Letters last week.  A team led by geophysicist Charlotte Gaugné-Gouranton, of Paris City University, used satellite data to analyze a peculiar shift in the Earth's gravitational field that affected a huge region of the eastern Atlantic Ocean.

The team is uncertain what caused the anomaly, which lasted for about two years and then subsided back into its original state.  "By analyzing time series of GRACE [Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment]-derived gravity gradients, we have identified an anomalous large-scale gravity gradient signal in the eastern Atlantic Ocean, maximum at the beginning of 2007, which cannot be fully explained by surface water sources nor core fluid flows," the researchers wrote.  "This leads us to suggest that at least part of this signal could reflect rapid mass redistributions deep in the mantle."

The team suspects it might have been caused by a sudden phase transition in a common mantle mineral called bridgmanite (Mg,Fe(SiO3)), which could cause mass redistribution because of changes in density, similar to what happens when water freezes into ice.  But further research is needed to confirm this explanation.

Well, in a classic case of people adding 1 + 1 and getting 73.8, we immediately had dozens of self-styled experts adding "anomaly" to "gravity" and multiplying by "cannot be fully explained" and getting... well, take a look for yourself:

• "Advanced technology of alien manufacture is capable of 'shielding' from gravity and is the means of FTL propulsion that's been observed over and over.  This 'blink' means it's finally been captured by scientific equipment.  Countdown until the government denials start."
• "Disruptions like this are to be expected during the End Times.  Hell is on the move."
• "The scientists know more than they're letting on.  I wouldn't live along the East Coast of the United States if you paid me.  Connections to La Palma?"  [Nota bene: La Palma is one of the Canary Islands, home to a volcano that has been erupting intermittently since 2021, and was the subject of a rather hysterical BBC documentary in 2000 about how the island could split in half and cause a megatsunami -- something geologists have determined is extremely unlikely]
• "When those windows open and close again, it is a sign of the Celestial Ascension.  We should expect more of the same very soon."
• "I'm surprised they let this study get published.  Something that can change the Universal Law of Gravity, and they're shrugging it off as an 'anomaly'?  But now that the secret is out, why hasn't this been headline news worldwide?"
• "The LHC [Large Hadron Collider] went online in 2008.  Not a coincidence.  It's only a theory, but they said that the LHC could create mini black holes, and this may be proof."
• "Movement within the Hollow Earth.  But movement of what?  Stay tuned, folks, this is big."

*brief pause to stop banging my head against my desk while whimpering softly*

Okay, let's all just hang on a moment.  First of all, this anomaly was vast in size, but tiny in magnitude.  The fluctuation was small enough that it was undetectable on the Earth's surface (the scientists' own words) and was only caught by highly sensitive sensors on satellites that had been specifically designed to detect minute shifts in the Earth's gravitational field.  Second, it wasn't a "blink" -- it lasted for over two years.  Third, it peaked back in 2007, so whatever it was ended seventeen years ago, and in that time we have seen no Atlantic megatsunamis, aliens, Celestial Ascensions, or hellmouths opening.  Fourth, a shift in the gravitational field just means "something with mass moved," not a "change in the Universal Law of Gravitation."  Fifth, if the LHC had created a dangerous mini black hole, you'd think the physicists right there in Switzerland would have been the first to know, not some geologists working out in the Atlantic.  Sixth, you can't give an idea legitimacy simply by adding the phrase "it's only a theory;" if a claim was stupid before, it's still stupid after you say that.  In fact, it might be even stupider.

Seventh, and most importantly: for fuck's sake, people.

Captain Picard has absolutely had it with this kind of nonsense.

It's not that we laypeople -- and I very much include myself in that term -- can't get carried away by the hype sometimes.  In fact, when I first read about the La Palma thing a few years ago, I was honestly kind of freaked out by it; devastating landslide-induced megatsunamis have happened before (in fact, long-term followers of Skeptophilia might recall that I've written about two of them here -- the Storegga Slide and the Agadir Canyon Avalanche).  But then I did what everyone should do when they're confronted with a claim outside of their area of expertise; I did a little digging to find out what the scientists themselves had to say on the topic, and I found out that just about all geologists agree that while La Palma is clearly seismically active, it's unlikely to fracture and create an ocean-wide megatsunami.

At that point, I just kind of went, "whew," and resumed business as usual.  I did not then go on to claim that the scientists were wrong, the island was too going to fracture, and aliens from the Hollow Earth were going to use their anti-gravity faster-than-light propulsion to come out and usher in either the End Times or the Celestial Ascension, depending on which version you went for earlier.

Look, it's not that there's anything specifically dangerous about thinking there's an alien base under the eastern Atlantic.  It's more that such fuzzy irrationality very quickly becomes a habit.  Once you're accustomed to demanding respect for a claim that upon examination turns out to be "this crazy, fact-free idea I just now pulled out of my ass," you begin to apply the same demand for your uninformed opinions on medicine, the economy, and politics.

Which in one sentence explains why the United States is currently a slow-motion train wreck.

It all goes back to what Isaac Asimov said in 1980, doesn't it?  Seems like a good place to end:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been.  The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

****************************************