A hostile beauty

William Shatner, of Star Trek fame, wrote some profoundly moving words in his book Boldly Go, about his experience riding into space on Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin shuttle:

I love the mystery of the universe.  I love all the questions that have come to us over thousands of years of exploration and hypotheses.  Stars exploding years ago, their light traveling to us years later; black holes absorbing energy; satellites showing us entire galaxies in areas thought to be devoid of matter entirely… all of that has thrilled me for years… but when I looked in the opposite direction, into space, there was no mystery, no majestic awe to behold... all I saw was death.

I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness.  It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth.  It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing.  I turned back toward the light of home.  I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky.  It was life.  Nurturing, sustaining, life.  Mother Earth.  Gaia.  And I was leaving her.

Everything I had thought was wrong.  Everything I had expected to see was wrong.

I had thought that going into space would be the ultimate catharsis of that connection I had been looking for between all living things—that being up there would be the next beautiful step to understanding the harmony of the universe.  In the film Contact, when Jodie Foster’s character goes to space and looks out into the heavens, she lets out an astonished whisper, "They should’ve sent a poet."  I had a different experience, because I discovered that the beauty isn’t out there, it’s down here, with all of us.

He's right in one sense; the vast majority of the universe is intrinsically hostile to life.  It's why I've always found the Strong Anthropic Principle a little funny.  The Strong Anthropic Principle claims that the physical constants which are, as far as we currently understand, not derivable from anything else -- such as the strength of the four fundamental forces, the masses of the subatomic particles, the speed of light, the fine structure constant, and so on -- were set with those values in order to make the universe accommodate matter and energy as we know it, and ultimately, life.  The words they use are "fine tuned."  If any of those constants were even a little bit different, life would be impossible.

Typically, the argument progresses from "fine tuning" to "implies a fine tuner" to "implies God."

This whole line of thought, though, ignores three things.  First, of course we live in a universe that has the physical constants set such that life is possible; if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to discuss the matter.  (This is called the Weak Anthropic Principle.)  Second, when I said those constants are not derivable from anything else, you should place the emphasis on the phrase that came before it; as far as we currently understand.  It may be that physicists will eventually find a Grand Unified Theory showing that some -- perhaps all -- of the physical constants are what they are because of a single fundamental principle stating that they aren't arbitrary after all, that they couldn't have any other values.

Third, as Shatner points out, most of the universe -- even most of the Earth, honestly -- is pretty fucking hostile to life as it is.

But I question his statement that this makes the universe any less beautiful.  I was in Iceland this summer and got to see an erupting volcano -- the whole nine yards, with jets of orange lava fountaining up and cascading down the side of the cinder cone.  I could feel the heat on my face from where I stood, about a hundred meters away; much closer, and my skin would have blistered.  The sulfur fumes were only made tolerable by the fact that it was a windy day.  The hillside beneath my feet was vibrating, the air filled with a roar like thunder.  Standing there, I was in no doubt at all about my own frailty.

It was also incredibly, devastatingly beautiful.

I was thinking about the beauty of the universe -- as unquestionably inimical as it is to our kind -- when I saw images from the Hubble Space Telescope of the Cat's Eye Nebula, along with a visualization of what it would look like close up, created by a team led by Ryan Clairemont of Stanford University:

The spirals are thought to be caused by two stars in the center of the nebula orbiting around each other, each emitting a pair of plasma jets that have been twisted by the stars' motion in the fashion of the jets of water sprayed from a spinning garden sprinkler.  But whatever the cause of the pattern, I was immediately struck by its awe-inspiring beauty.

I've never been to space, and I don't mean to gainsay Shatner's experience.  But I find the vast immensity of space to be beautiful even though I know my own existence in it is all but insignificant.  I can look up at the autumn constellations, as I did last night -- Perseus and Andromeda, Pegasus and Pisces and Aquarius -- and appreciate the beauty of those stars glittering in the night sky from the warm safety of my home planet.  Maybe some of them have planets harboring their own frail, fragile life forms, who just like us are dependent on the searing fires of their host stars to survive, and just like us look up into the night sky with awe and wonder.

Frightening?  Sure.  Dangerous, savage, unpredictable?  Undeniable.

But also deeply, overwhelmingly beautiful.

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

Taking the temperature of the universe

There's something compelling about the things in our universe that are on a wildly different scale than we are.  The very tiny -- subatomic particles, atoms, even things as (comparatively) large as molecules -- boggle our minds by their bizarre behavior, a body of knowledge collectively known as quantum mechanics.  Likewise, the very large bowls us over by our positions in a cosmos that makes even the most arrogant and human-centric of us feel insignificant.

It's the large end of the scale that's been a fascination of mine for some time.  I remember as a teenager running into the classic 1977 video Powers of Ten, that starts hovering a meter above the hand of a sleeping man in a park, and then moves away from him at an increasing speed, moving ten times faster every ten seconds.  Before much time has elapsed -- and the whole video is under ten minutes long -- we are outside of the known universe, and our own "Local Group" of galaxies is a mere dot in the center of the screen.  Then we dive back down toward the sleeping man, this time covering ten times less distance every ten seconds, and finally are centered on a single proton in a carbon atom in one of his DNA molecules.

Since 1977, of course, we've learned a lot more about each end of the scale.  We now know that the universe itself is anisotropic -- the stars and galaxies are not uniformly distributed across space, but exists in superclusters and filaments, with enormous empty spaces in between -- accurately if spookily called "cosmic voids."  (One of them, the Boötes void, is nicknamed "The Great Nothing," and is so large that if the Sun was at the center of it, the night sky would be completely black, and we would not have had a telescope powerful enough to find out about the existence of other stars until the 1960s.)

[Image is licensed under the Creative Commons Richard Powell, Nearsc, CC BY-SA 2.5]

A piece of research published this week in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics has added another piece to our understanding of the structure of the universe, but raised a number of questions as well -- which, of course, good research should always do.

The paper, entitled "Isotropy and Statistics of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," is an analysis of data from the Planck spacecraft, which has taken measurements for years of the radiation spread across the cosmos that is the remnant of the first flash of light at the moment of the Big Bang.  You'd expect that it would be fairly uniform -- given that the Big Bang kind of happened everywhere at once -- but the curious result of the research is that there is a "warm hemisphere" and a "cold hemisphere" of the universe, as measured by the deviation of the temperature from the average of only slightly above absolute zero -- and weirder still, that in the middle of the "warm hemisphere" is a giant cold spot.

[Image courtesy of the Planck Telescope Project]

What's the most bizarre about this is that the data hovers right on the edge of statistical significance, but the pattern has been detected more than once and does not seem to be a random fluctuation.  If it's correct, it'll force a significant rethinking of our understanding of the structure of the universe -- and how it all started.

So there's your moment of "geez, we are really tiny" for today.  On the Planck map picture above, the entire Milky Way -- 53,000 light years across, composed of about 250 billion stars -- is a single minuscule dot.  All of which makes our little struggles on this Pale Blue Dot seem rather inconsequential, doesn't it?

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

As will be obvious to any long-time readers of Skeptophilia, I have a positive fascination with things that are big and scary and can kill you.

It's why I tell my students, in complete seriousness, if I hadn't become a teacher I'd have been a tornado chaser.  There's something awe-inspiring about the sheer magnitude of destruction they're capable of.  Likewise earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires...

But as sheer destructive power goes, there's nothing like the ones that are produced off-Earth.  These are the subject of Phil Plait's brilliant, funny, and highly entertaining Death From the Skies.  Plait is best known for his wonderful blog Bad Astronomy, which simultaneously skewers pseudoscience and teaches us about all sorts of fascinating stellar phenomena.  Here, he gives us the scoop on all the dangerous ones -- supernovas, asteroid collisions, gamma-ray bursters, Wolf-Rayet stars, black holes, you name it.  So if you have a morbid fascination with all the ways the universe is trying to kill you, presented in such a way that you'll be laughing as much as shivering, check out Plait's book.

[Note:  If you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

Unique, just like everyone else

There's this idea that the creationists just love, and it's called the Strong Anthropic Principle.  The idea of the Strong Anthropic Principle is that there are a lot of seemingly arbitrary parameters in the universe, all of which appear to be underivable from other basic principles, and which are uniquely set to generate a universe in which stable matter and life can exist.  The speed of light, the strength of the strong nuclear force, the fine structure constant, the strength of gravity, the strength of the electromagnetic force -- all of them are at values which, if you tweaked them a little bit in either direction, would result in an uninhabitable universe.

The problem is, the Strong Anthropic Principle seems to breeze right past two inherent flaws in reasoning.  The first is that the fundamental constants seem underivable from first principles -- emphasis on the word seem.  In other words, the conjecture that they are arbitrary, and that their value is an example of an intelligent deity's fine tuning, rests on our current state of ignorance about physics.

The second, of course, is that it's a completely untestable proposition.  Unless you're assuming your conclusion (that a creator exists) you can't tell anything from the fundamental physical constants except that they are what they are.  After all, we only have the one universe accessible to study.  It could equally well be that other universes are just as likely as this one, and have other physical constants (and thus are uninhabitable) -- and that we can ask the question only because if the constants in this universe were other than they are, we wouldn't be here to consider it.  (This latter framing of the problem is called the "Weak Anthropic Principle," and is usually the stance taken by non-theists.)

The general weakness of the Strong Anthropic Principle hasn't stopped it from being embraced wholeheartedly by people who are trying to bolster the creationist worldview, and it's the essence of the article that appeared on Answers in Genesis a while back called "Not Just Another Star."  The whole thing, really, can be summed up as "Aren't we special?"  Here's a sampling:

While the sun has many characteristics similar to stars, the Bible never refers to it as a star. This suggests that the sun may have some unique characteristics. Could that refer to its composition? The sun’s composition is a bit unusual—it has far less lithium than most stars do. Lithium isn’t very common in stars anyway, but the sun is among the most lithium-poor stars. Though this statistic is interesting, it isn’t clear whether it is significant... 

By God’s gracious design, the earth has a protective magnetic field that prevents the sun’s flares from disrupting life. The particles racing from the sun interact with the magnetic field, which deflects most of the particles. Yet we are periodically reminded about such imminent danger when the flares overload the ability of the earth’s magnetic field to protect us. Astronauts on the Space Station must enter protected sections of the station after a solar flare. 

Not all planets have strong enough magnetic fields to protect living organisms on their surfaces. Even on planets that do, the situation would be dire if the star’s magnetic activity were far higher than the sun’s. The much more frequent and far more powerful flares probably would compromise any reasonable magnetic field that a planet would have. Because this particle radiation would be harmful to living things, even secular astronomers recognize that variable stars probably can’t support living things... 

Our sun is just a tiny yellow star in a vast collection that could support life. You’ll hear this more and more. Don’t believe it. The minimum requirement of a life-supporting star is missing from all the other stars. Our God-given sun appears to be unique.

What makes this wryly amusing that the creationists are choosing this week to post the article all over the place (it was actually written a few months ago, but I've just seen it on evangelical websites in the last week or so) -- because two days ago, a study appeared over at Phys.org that suggests that not only might the Earth not be unique, we might be one of (get this) 100 million inhabitable planets in the Milky Way alone.

That, friends, is a lot of places to look for alien life.  And a pretty strong blow to anyone's impression that the Earth is The Chosen Place.  Here's what one of the paper's authors, Alberto Farién of Cornell University, had to say:

This study does not indicate that complex life exists on that many planets. We're saying that there are planetary conditions that could support it. Origin of life questions are not addressed – only the conditions to support life.  Complex life doesn't mean intelligent life – though it doesn't rule it out or even animal life – but simply that organisms larger and more complex than microbes could exist in a number of different forms.  For example, organisms that form stable food webs like those found in ecosystems on Earth.

Add that to the fact that as nice as the Earth is, even here we have a great many places that are pretty hostile to human life -- Antarctica, large parts of the Great Rift Valley, Australia's Nullarbor Plain, most of the Sahara -- not to mention 71% of the surface area of the Earth (i.e. the oceans) -- and the Strong Anthropic Principle is looking weaker and weaker.

So, yeah.  Nice try, but not so much.

It's been a continuous move out of the center for us, hasn't it?  First Copernicus knocks down geocentrism; then Kepler says that the planets don't move in perfect circles.  Darwin punches a hole in the uniqueness of Homo sapiens with The Ascent of Man, and various geneticists in the 20th century show that all life, down to the simplest, pretty much encodes information the same way.  Now, we find out that there may be 100 million places kind of like the Earth out there in space.

Some people may find that depressing, but I don't.  I actually think it's awesome.  For one thing, it would mean we're almost certainly not alone in the universe.  For another, I think that a lot of humanity's missteps have come from a false sense of superiority -- over the environment, over other species, even over other human groups.  Maybe this kind of thing is good for us; there's nothing wrong with adopting a little humility as a species, not to mention perspective.