The voice of an angel

New from the "It's Not A Sin When We Do It" department, we have: Christian Charismatics using a spin-off of the Ouija board to contact angels.

I was sent this story by a friend and long-time loyal reader of Skeptophilia, and my first thought was, "This can't be true."  Sadly, it is.  The same people who go on and on about how evil Ouija boards are and how you're risking your eternal soul even being in the same room with one are now saying that their Ouija boards are just fine and dandy.

The "Angel Board" is available from Amazon at the low-low-low price of $28 (plus shipping and handling).  In the product description, we're told that we can "ask any question we want, and the Angel Board will answer."  If you don't like that particular one, it turns out there are dozens of different makes and models, some costing hundreds of dollars.  

Because we can't just have one company capitalizing on people's gullibility.

Interestingly, if not surprisingly, the reviews have been uniformly good. One five-star review says:

I have been on a path of spiritual enlightenment for 1 year now.  I have two other friends who have shared this path with me.  We share books, experiences, thoughts and feelings, but when one of us (not me) bought this book and “game” board to communicate with our higher-level guides or “guardian angels,” it became a turning point in my journey.  I didn’t think I was “advanced enough” or “spiritual enough” to make this thing work.  I learned, in about 2 minutes, that doubting myself was doubting God and his angels!  In one evening, I met my higher guide, felt unconditional love, and knew I wasn’t alone and never had been.  I was convinced, beyond all reason, of the presence of my angel.  To this date, I call him “J” as we haven’t yet tuned our energies to really work out the spelling of the name…  I asked him if “J” would be okay, and he said, “yes.”  He has answered to “J” ever since!  One evening, before I was able to acquire an “angel board” of my own, I tried an Ouija Board.  It took several attempts before J was able to answer me, but when he did, I asked if he preferred the angel board and he responded “yes.”  We had a very difficult, short conversation that night. The angel board is a MUST for all those who seek a closer relationship with their guardian angel, and who have not had much practice in meditation and raising their energies to a compatible level with the light bodies waiting to guide us!

It's to be hoped that when they "tune their energies" and she finds out "J's" actual name, it's not a rude shock.  It'd kind of suck if she thought she was talking to the Archangel Jophiel and it turned out she was having a conversation with, say, Jar-Jar Binks.

It bears mention, however, that not everyone is so sanguine about the Angel Board.  At the site Women of Grace, we're given the following warning:

Angel boards are just as dangerous as Ouija boards, perhaps more so because they haves [sic] the same purpose as a Ouija board – contacting “spirits” – only they pretend to be summoning guardian angels to make it seem less dangerous...  This is so dangerous on so many levels.  When a person evokes spirits of the dead, he or she is never in control because they are dealing with preternatural forces.  These are powerful beings who are possessed of super-human intelligence, strength and cunning.  Only the most naïve would think that they can control summoned spirits merely by “politely” asking them to come or go...  Needless to say, angel boards should be strictly avoided.

Over at Our Spiritual Quest, "ex medium and professional astrologer" Marcia Montenegro agrees:

Any attempt to contact or summon an angel will result in contact only with a fallen angel.  Spiritism is strongly forbidden and denounced by God and angels are spirit creatures.

 
There is no example anywhere in the Bible of anyone contacting an angel.  The angels who brought messages or did other things for people in the Bible were sent at God’s command.  They were never summoned by man.

 
Asking questions using this Board is the same as using a Ouija Board.  In both cases, only fallen angels, disguised as good angels, as guardian angels, or as the dead, will respond.

I never realized that borrowing from the spiritualists was such a big thing among the hyper-religious, but apparently it is.  There's even a "Christian Tarot deck," available at (surprise!) Amazon, which says that the practice if done right is "biblically consonant."  As you might imagine, this got quite a reaction, both from the people who think Tarot cards are the instrument of the devil and those who think divination is a divine gift.

Weirder still, sometimes those are the same people, just on different days.  Kris Vallotton, pastor of the Bethel Church and self-styled "spiritual leader," heard people said that he and his church members were using Christian Tarot cards developed by a group called "Christalignment," and responded in no uncertain terms:

This is insane... whoever is doing this needs to repent the craziness in the name of "reaching people for Christ..."  There are people who listen to our teaching and create strange and/or anti-biblical applications in our name...  [W]e need wisdom as we move into the cesspool we call the world.  Stop the craziness!

Shortly afterwards, Vallotton responded to his response in no uncertain terms:

There has been some recent concern about the ministry of Christalignment and their supposed use of “Christian tarot cards” in ministering to people at New Age festivals.  While the leaders of this ministry (Ken and Jenny Hodge) are connected with several members of our community (including being the parents to our much-loved brother, evangelist Ben Fitzgerald), Christalignment is not formally affiliated with Bethel.  We do, however, have a value for what they are seeking to accomplish.

When his followers raised hell about his sudden about-face, not to mention an apparent chumminess with occultists, Vallotton responded to the response to his response in no uncertain terms:

Let’s be clear: I was speaking against Tarot cards and their use, which I am still against.  I was addressing people who were accusing Bethel taking part in this practice.  We don’t and never have been been apart [sic] of this.  So that’s still true!  The people who were named in the article, were never named in the people’s accusations of us (that I knew of at the time) nor did I name anyone in my posts.  The article turned out to be fake news against great people who love God, don’t use Tarot cards and lead 1000s of people who do, to Christ.

So there you have it.  He's unequivocally for it except in the sense that he's unequivocally against it.

But he did get some support from one of his followers who said she thought there was nothing wrong even if these were Tarot cards, because -- and I swear I am not making this up -- he says that "'Tarot' is 'Torah' spelled backwards."

Predictably, I read all this with an expression like this:

My general impression is that the whole lot of it -- Tarot cards, Ouija boards, angelology, and the entire Charismatic movement -- is nonsense.  So arguing about whether a silly board game or some funny pictures printed on cheap card stock are going to put you in touch with an angel or with the Prince of Darkness is a little like arguing over whether 2 + 3 equals 17 or 358.

Anyhow, thanks to the loyal reader who sent me the link.  I suppose it's a good thing that this is what the hyper-Christians are currently spending their time discussing.  It's less time they'll have to spend trying to shoehorn young-Earth creationism into public school science curricula and voting in Christofascist authoritarians to public office.  If those are my other options, I'll take sacred Ouija boards any day.

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

MoND denied

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote a post about MoND -- modified Newtonian dynamics -- a new(ish) model of gravitation that purported to explain some of odd measurements of stellar and galactic motion without the necessity of dark matter.

Here's the situation.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the brilliant astronomer Vera Rubin discovered something peculiar.  The project she was working on involved mapping the speed of revolution of stars around galactic centers.  According to Newton's Law of Gravitation and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion (which, after all, have the same mathematical underpinning), stars farther away from the center should be moving more slowly.  This principle works fine, for example, in our own Solar System; Neptune moves more slowly than Mercury does.

This, Rubin found, turned out not to be true on larger scales.  The velocities of stars in the farther reaches of galaxies were moving just as fast as the ones closer to the center.  Nicknamed the flat rotation curve problem, it seemed like the only possible explanation was that there was more mass in the galaxy than had been detected -- something appeared to be causing the outer stars to orbit faster than Newtonian dynamics said they should.

Rubin and others called this mysterious something dark matter. 

And you probably know the amount of this stuff is significant.  If you add up all the detectable mass/energy in the universe, only 5% of it is ordinary matter.  26.8% of it is dark matter, and 68.2% is dark energy, an unrelated type of mass/energy that is thought to be responsible for the runaway expansion of the universe, and which is even less understood than dark matter is.

Dark matter interacts with regular matter via gravity, but -- as far as we can tell -- in no other way.  It seems to be completely unaffected by the other forces that act on the ordinary stuff we see on a day-to-day basis.  There have been various experiments set up to try to detect dark matter particles, but as of the time of this writing, every single one of them has come up empty-handed.  It's bizarre to think about; a substance that makes up five times more of the mass of the universe than all the regular matter put together, and thus far, we haven't the slightest idea what it's made of.

There's also the problem that the Standard Model -- the framework that accounts for all the ordinary matter particles, and how they interact -- is one of the most rigorously-tested theories in science, and performs to a level of precision that beggars belief.  And nothing in the Standard Model appears to admit of some strange extra particle(s) that might account for dark matter.

Well, along came Mordehai Milgrom, who in 1983 tried something a little like what Einstein did with respect to the luminiferous aether -- he said, "I have a new theory that eliminates the need for dark matter entirely."  It's called modified Newtonian dynamics, MoND for short, and proposes that the problem is that Newton's Law of Gravitation doesn't work for objects experiencing really low accelerations (like the stars in the outer reaches of galaxies).  Like the Theories of Relativity, it leaves the model relatively unchanged at the velocities and accelerations we encounter on a daily basis; here on the surface of the Earth, Newton still works just fine.  But what Einstein did for systems in extreme gravitational fields or high velocities, Milgrom did for systems experiencing really low accelerations -- tweaking the mathematics to make it match the observations.

And those tweaks, in one stroke, eliminated the need for some hypothetical and undetectable form of matter.

The Whirlpool Galaxy [Image licensed under the Creative Commons NASA/ESA/JPL/Hubble Heritage Team & C. Violette, M51 (2), CC BY-SA 4.0]

Well, the race was on to try to figure out which model was correct -- Newton (with dark matter) or MoND (without it).  And earlier this year, Korean astrophysicist Kyu-Hyun Chae seemed to have settled it once and for all, showing that observations of wide binaries -- pairs of stars orbiting their common centers of gravity at large distances -- matched the predictions of MoND brilliantly.

However, there were astrophysicists who immediately had objections.  Chae, they said, had not done a good job of eliminating data points that were problematic.  The difficulty is that if you're observing a binary pair from Earth, to figure out the velocities and accelerations of the stars in the pair, you have to take into account a variety of complicating factors, including:

• the speed the entire system is moving toward or away from Earth
• the eccentricity (elliptical-ness) of the orbit
• the inclination of the orbit -- how much it's tilted toward or away from us

So a group of researchers, led by astrophysicist Indranil Banik of the University of St. Andrews, has developed a technique for sifting through the data points and using the ones for which there is the best confidence in the velocity measurements (significantly, Banik's team only eliminated about twenty percent of Chae's data points).  And in their paper, which came out five days ago, they found when they do that, the agreement of the data with MoND vanishes completely.

Without the wonky data points, the measurements from wide binaries that seemed to settle the argument in favor of MoND actually agree with Newtonian dynamics...

... to a confidence of 19 σ.  To us non-scientists -- as the wonderful YouTuber Dr. Becky Smethurst explains it -- a 19 σ confidence level means there is only a one in one hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion chance that their result is a statistical fluke.  (And if you want to know more, I highly recommend watching Dr. Becky's video on the new paper, which is awesome.)

So with regards to theories of gravity, it appears that Newton is the only game in town, meaning we're stuck with dark matter.  MoND is dead in the water, so unless someone comes up with some sort of different model entirely that matches the data better than Newton does, we'll have to keep looking for this ghostly matter whose only fingerprint is its gravity.

It's an exciting time to be an astrophysicist... or just a deeply curious science nerd.

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

The story of the Scablands

After my rather cataclysmic posts about geology last week, which looked at the volcano off the Greek island of Thera and the fault just waiting to rupture near the Pacific Northwest, one of my friends and a long-time loyal reader of Skeptophilia asked me if I'd ever done a post on the "Channeled Scablands."  I told him I'd mentioned it once or twice, but always in passing.

So as befits a catastrophe so big it beggars belief, I thought a more thorough look was warranted.

There's a bizarre bit of terrain in what is now eastern Washington and Oregon that goes by the rather horrid-sounding name my friend referenced, and if you ever fly over it, you'll see why.  It's formed of teardrop-shaped pockets of relatively intact topsoil surrounded by gullies floored with bare rock.  The terrain has the look of what a shallow stream does to a sandy beach as it flows into sea, only on a gargantuan scale:

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons DKRKaynor, Channeled Scablands, CC BY-SA 4.0]

Then there's Dry Falls, in the upper Grand Coulee Basin, which even has a plunge pool basin at its foot... but almost no water:

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons © Steven Pavlov / http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Senapa / CC BY-SA 3.0, Dry Falls (Washington), CC BY-SA 3.0]

Geologists figured out pretty quickly that the entire terrain was sculpted by a huge amount of running water.  But the problem is, the entire area is a desert, and apparently has been for a long while.

So where'd all the water come from -- and where did it go?

The answer turned out to be the Missoula Megaflood -- a tremendous flood (thus the name) that occurred eighteen thousand years ago, and which is right up there with Thera and the Cascadia Subduction Zone on our list of things that are big and scary and can kill you.

What apparently happened is that during the last ice age, a glacial dam formed across the northern Idaho Rockies, blocking the outflow of what are now the Columbia, Snake, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, and Spokane Rivers.  As the climate warmed, the ice melted, but all that water had nowhere to go, so it backed up into an enormous lake -- called Lake Missoula -- that covered a good bit of what is now western Montana. 

As the ice age ended, the warming continued.  Eventually this caused the ice dam to collapse, and all that water drained out, sweeping across what is now eastern Washington, and literally scouring the place down to bedrock. 

What made the flood even worse was a phenomenon called isostasy.  We're used to thinking of the tectonic plates as moving back and forth, more or less parallel to the Earth's surface, but what is less obvious is that they can also move up and down -- perpendicular to the surface, like ice cubes bobbing in a glass of sweet tea.  These chunks of the Earth's crust are actually floating in the semi-solid mantle beneath them, and the level they float is dependent upon how heavy they are, just as putting heavy weights in a boat makes it float lower in the water. 

Well, as the Cordilleran Ice Sheet melted, that weight was removed, and this caused the flat piece of crust underneath it to lift upward on its eastern edge.

The whole western corner of the United States tilted toward the Pacific Ocean.  It's like having a full bowl of water on a table, and lifting one end of the table. The bowl will dump over, spilling out the water, and it will flow downhill and run off the edge -- just as Lake Missoula did.

The result was a colossal flood that at its peak was traveling at an estimated one hundred kilometers an hour.  Dry Falls was, at that point, an enormous waterfall five times the width of Niagara Falls, with a flow rate ten times higher than all of the rivers in the world combined.

[Nota bene: This sort of isostatic tilt is still going on today, most notably underneath Great Britain.  During the last ice age, Scotland was completely glaciated; southern England was not.  The melting of those glaciers has resulted in isostatic rebound, lifting the northern edge of the island by ten centimeters per century.  The problem is, the whole country is connected (however a lot of Scottish people might wish otherwise), so the entire island is tipping like a teeter-totter.  The tilt is pushing southern England downward, and it's sinking, at about five centimeters per century.  Fortunately, there's no giant lake waiting to spill across the country.]

These kinds of megafloods aren't uncommon, usually during the transition between a glacial and an interglacial period.  Another place this happened is not far from where I live -- around thirteen thousand years ago, there was an ice dam across what is now the St. Lawrence River, blocking the main outflow from the Great Lakes.  This backed all that water up into a huge lake called Lake Agassiz, which encompassed all of the Great Lakes and then some.  It was the same story as Lake Missoula; as the climate warmed, the ice dam collapsed, and a large percentage of the water drained out into the North Atlantic.  Some climatologists think that this may have been responsible for the Younger Dryas event, when the warming trend in North America suddenly reversed, the temperatures dropping in only a few decades by an estimated 7 C -- because all that fresh water temporarily shut down the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, stopping the Gulf Stream in its tracks and sending eastern North America, Greenland, and western Europe back into the deep freeze for over a thousand years.  (The link between the draining of Lake Agassiz, the Younger Dryas, and the shutdown of the NAMOC is far from settled, however.)

This sort of thing, besides being fascinating in its own right, always makes me think of the people who talk about Earth being "fine tuned" for human habitation.  When you start looking into geology, climatology, and astronomy, you realize how tenuous our existence actually is.  That we've done as well as we have, despite all the natural calamities, is impressive, but our continued survival is hardly guaranteed.  We'd better start understanding the past history of our home, including the violent and uncomfortable bits -- lest our own reckless and heedless actions trigger a catastrophe we're ill prepared to deal with.

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

A map from the home world

One of the most persistent -- dare I say, canonical -- stories of alien abduction is the tale of Betty and Barney Hill.

The gist of the story is that the Hills, a couple from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, were driving home from their vacation in September of 1961, and near Franconia Notch, New Hampshire they saw a UFO that seemed to be following them.  After observing it for a while, including through binoculars, they experienced a "time-slip," and found themselves back home without any memory of how they'd gotten there.  The following day, they noticed some oddities -- Barney's new dress shoes were scuffed, the leather strap on his binoculars was broken, neither of their watches worked, and there were several shiny concentric marks on the hood of their car.

They were puzzled, but no explanation seemed forthcoming, so they forgot about it, until Betty started to have dreams about being aboard a spacecraft.  This eventually led to some hypnosis sessions in which both of them claimed to have suppressed memories of being abducted and examined (our lore about aliens doing, shall we say, rather intimate examination of abducted humans comes largely from Barney's claims under hypnosis).

All of this would be nothing more than your usual Close Encounter story -- lots of wild claims, nothing in the way of hard evidence -- if it weren't for one thing that Betty revealed.  While she was on the spaceship, she said, she was shown a star map that had the aliens' home world and various other star systems with lines between them showing "trade routes."  She attempted to reconstruct a two-dimensional drawing (she said the map she'd been shown was three-dimensional), and here's what she drew:

Now, potentially, this could be interesting.  One of the more eye-opening things I learned when I was a teenager watching the original Cosmos series was that the constellations in our night sky only seem 2-D from our perspective, but there's actually a third dimension -- depth -- that we can't see from Earth.  If you add that third dimension, it becomes obvious that what we call "constellations" are actually random assemblages of stars that only seem near each other from our perspective, but are actually at greatly varying distances from us.  This means that if they were observed from a different vantage point, the constellations would look nothing like they do here at home -- and in fact, many of the stars that appear to be close together would be widely separated in the sky. 

One of the coolest animations from the series was looking at the stars of the Big Dipper, first as we see it from the Earth, then making a huge circle around it.  It doesn't take much of a difference in angle to make it look nothing at all like the Big Dipper.  Here's the constellation as it's seen from Earth, and the same stars as viewed after a ninety-degree revolution around the star in the lower left corner:

So if Betty Hill's recollection of the alien star map was real, then it'd be pretty convincing -- because the aliens presumably would have drawn the stars from the perspective of their home star system, not ours.  This would be mighty hard to fake now, much less 58 years ago.  So the race was on to try and figure out whether the map Betty Hill drew conformed to any known configuration of stars as viewed from somewhere else in the galaxy.

The person whose answer is the most commonly accepted by UFO enthusiasts is Marjorie Fish, who identified the home world of the aliens as Zeta Reticuli (thus kicking off all of the claims that the Annunaki, the "Greys," and various other superintelligent species have come here from that star system).  Starting from that star, Fish said, there are nearby stars that could represent the ones on the Hill map.

Which brings up the problems with the claim.

Recall that the map is the only hard evidence -- if you can call it that -- to come out of the Hill story.  Brian Dunning, of the brilliant blog Skeptoid, is critical of the claim right from the get-go:

Several years [after the alleged abduction], a schoolteacher named Marjorie Fish read a book about the Hills.  She then took beads and strings and converted her living room into a three dimensional version of the galaxy based on the 1969 Gliese Star Catalog.  She then spent several years viewing her galaxy from different angles, trying to find a match for Betty's map, and eventually concluded that Zeta Reticuli was the alien homeworld.  Other UFOlogists have proposed innumerable different interpretations.  Carl Sagan and other astronomers have said that it is not even a good match for Zeta Reticuli, and that Betty's drawing is far too random and imprecise to make any kind of useful interpretation.  With its third dimension removed, Betty's map cannot contain any useful positional information.  Even if she had somehow drawn a perfect 3D map that did exactly align with known star positions, it still wouldn't be evidence of anything other than that such reference material is widely available, in sources like the Gliese Star Catalog.

The problem runs deeper than that, though.  Long-time readers of Skeptophilia may recall a piece I did a while back on ley lines -- the idea that there are towns and sacred sites that are aligned because there are "energy currents" beneath the ground that flow in straight lines, and were why the ancients chose to build on those specific sites.  The trouble is (as my post describes), in any arrangement of random dots, you can find strings of dots that are close to falling in a straight line, just by random chance.  No "energy currents" required.

Here, the difficulty is magnified by the fact that we don't just have a couple of hundred dots (or, in this case, stars) to choose from, but tens of thousands, and that's just counting the relatively nearby ones.  Also, they're not on a flat surface, as with the ley lines; they're in a three-dimensional grid, which you're allowed to look at from any perspective you want to.

If those were Marjorie Fish's constraints, it's actually astonishing that she took years to find a group of stars that matched Betty Hill's map.

We're pattern-finding animals, we humans.  As with pareidolia -- our capacity for seeing faces in inanimate objects like clouds, walls, and grilled-cheese sandwiches -- if there's no pattern there, our brains will often invent one.  Add to that confirmation bias and just plain wishful thinking, and it's not hard to see that the Hill map -- still considered the best evidence for the Hills' story -- is actually not much in the way of evidence at all.

Allow me to emphasize that I'm not saying Betty and Barney Hill weren't abducted.  It's just that -- to end with a quote from Neil DeGrasse Tyson -- "As a scientist, I need more than 'you saw it...'  If you have an actual object taken from a spacecraft, though, you'll have something of alien manufacture, and anything that has crossed interstellar space to get to Earth is going to be interesting.  So show me an object you've taken from the spaceship, and then we can talk."

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

Little cat man

It's amazing how many attempts it took for primates to successfully colonize North America.

There's only one primate species currently in the continent.  Us.  Other mammalian groups -- carnivores, rodents, ungulates, insectivores, bats, and so on -- have done fine here, flourishing and diversifying and lasting for tens of millions of years.

Primates haven't been so successful.

The first primates -- well, proto-primates -- in North America were the plesiadapiformes, which first appear in the fossil record in the early Paleocene Epoch, right after the Chicxulub Impact pretty well wiped out all the big animal species (most notably, the non-avian dinosaurs).  To modern eyes, they would have looked a bit like squirrels:

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Nobu Tamura (http://spinops.blogspot.com), Plesiadapis NT, CC BY-SA 3.0]

Despite the superficially squirrelly appearance, their skulls, and especially their teeth, show clear affinities with primates, not with rodents.

These guys were widespread, living throughout North America, Europe, and Asia.  All of those continents were still connected at this point -- what had been Pangaea had broken into a northern continent (Laurasia) and a southern continent (Gondwanaland, made up of what are now South America, Australia, and Antarctica).  But things were changing, as they are wont to do.  The Central Atlantic Magmatic Province had kicked into high gear, rifting Laurasia and splitting what would become North America from the rest of the continent, opening up the North Atlantic Ocean.  At that point, the primate species (and everyone else) in North America were pretty well stuck there.

And they lasted a while.  But at the end of the Eocene Epoch, around 34 million years ago, the North American continent got significantly cooler and drier.  This drove all the warmth-loving native primates to extinction.

[Nota bene: South American monkeys come from a different lineage.  Recall that at this point, North and South America were pretty far apart, and there was a lot of ocean in between.  South America was a great deal closer to Africa, though -- and was colonized by primates from Africa, probably by monkeys and other species clinging to rafts of plant roots and brush torn loose during storms.  They seem to have made this amazing journey in several pulses, starting about thirty million years ago.  In any case -- the genetic and structural evidence is clear that South American monkeys are related to primates from Africa, not the extinct groups in North America.]

In any case, North America was primateless for about four million years.  Then, suddenly, a primate appeared in what is now Nebraska.  This species, named Ekgmowechashala (the name is Sioux for "little cat man"), weighed about three kilograms, and looked a bit like a lemur.  But where the hell did it come from?

The whole topic came up in the first place because of new research into this odd creature, which appeared in the Journal of Human Evolution last week.  A thorough analysis of Ekgmowechashala fossils dating from around thirty million years ago found that they most closely resemble primate species in China and eastern Siberia.  Apparently, the ancestors of Ekgmowechashala did what the ancestors of the Native Americans would do, millions of years later.  They took advantage of the fact that the cooler conditions locked up more sea water in the form of ice, lowering sea levels.  Among other things, this turned what is now the Bering Sea into a broad valley with rolling hills (nicknamed Beringia), allowing them to cross into North America.

"The 'Lazarus effect' in paleontology is when we find evidence in the fossil record of animals apparently going extinct -- only to reappear after a long hiatus, seemingly out of nowhere," said Chris Beard, of the University of Kansas, who was senior author of the paper.  "This is the grand pattern of evolution that we see in the fossil record of North American primates. The first primates came to North America about 56 million years ago at the beginning of the Eocene, and they flourished on this continent for more than 20 million years.  But they went extinct when climate became cooler and drier near the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, about 34 million years ago.  Several million years later Ekgmowechashala shows up like a drifting gunslinger in a Western movie, only to be a flash in the pan as far as the long trajectory of evolution is concerned.  After Ekgmowechashala is gone for more than 25 million years, Clovis people come to North America, marking the third chapter of primates on this continent. Like Ekgmowechashala, humans in North America are a prime example of the Lazarus effect."

So the "little cat man" didn't last very long -- the continual cooling of the climate, peaking with the repeated continental glaciations of the "Ice Ages," was more than primates could cope with.  But as Beard points out, that didn't stop our own species from doing the very same thing, eventually colonizing all of North America, and more inhospitable places yet.

But it's odd to think that thirty million years ago, there was something very like a lemur living near what is now Omaha.

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

The greatest wall

Sometimes simple words can be the hardest to define accurately.

For example, in physics, what do we mean by the word structure?  The easiest way to conceptualize it is that it's a material object for which whatever force is holding it together outcompetes any other forces that might be involved.  For example, a brick could be considered a structure, because the chemical bonds in the fired clay are stronger than the forces trying to pull it apart.  The sand on a beach, however, doesn't form a single structure, because the forces between the sand grains aren't strong enough to hold them together against the power of the wind and water.

Simple enough, it'd seem, but once you get out into space, it gets a little more difficult.

In astronomy, a structure is something that is bound together by gravity so that on some scale, it acts as a single unit.  The Solar System is a cosmic structure; within it, the gravitational pull of the Sun overwhelms all other forces.  The Milky Way is a cosmic structure by the same definition.  But how big can you get and still call it a single structure?  The question gives astronomers fits, because (to abide by the definition) you have to show that the pieces of the structure are bound together in such a way that the mutual gravitational attraction is higher than the other forces they experience -- and given that a lot of these things are very far away, any such determination is bound to rest on some fairly thin ice.

The largest generally accepted cosmic structure is the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall, a galactic filament that (from our perspective) is in the night sky in the Northern Hemisphere in spring and early summer.  It's ten billion light years in length -- making it a little over a tenth as long as the entire observable universe!

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Pablo Carlos Budassi, Hercules-CoronaBorealisGreatWall, CC BY-SA 4.0]

In the above image, each one of the tiny dots of light is an entire galaxy containing billions of stars; the brighter blobs are galaxy clusters, each made up of millions of galaxies.

And the whole thing is bound together by gravity.

What's kind of overwhelming about this is that because there are these enormous cosmic structures, there are also gaps between them, called supervoids.  One of the largest is the Boötes Void.  This thing is 330 million light years across, and contains almost no matter at all; any given cubic meter of space inside the void might have a couple of hydrogen atoms, and that's about it.  To put it in perspective; if the Earth was sitting in the center of the Boötes Void, there wouldn't be a single star visible.  It wouldn't have been until the 1960s that we'd have had telescopes powerful enough to detect the nearest stars.

That, my friend, is a whole lot of nothing.

What's coolest about all this is where these structures (and the spaces between them) came from.  On the order of 10^-32 seconds (that's 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds) after the Big Bang, the bizarre phenomenon of cosmic inflation had not only blown the universe up by an amount that beggars belief (estimates are that in that first fraction of a second, it expanded from the size of a proton to about the size of a galaxy), it also smoothed out any lumpy bits (what the cosmologists call anisotropies).  This is why the universe today is pretty smooth and homogeneous -- if you look out into space, you see on average the same number of galaxies no matter which way you look.

But there are some pretty damn big anisotropies, like the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall and the Boötes Void.  So where did those come from?

The current model is that as inflation ended, an interaction between regular matter and dark matter triggered a shock wave through the plasma blob that at that point was the entire universe.  This shock wave -- a ripple, a pressure wave much like a sound wave propagating through the air -- pushed some bits of the regular matter closer together and pulled some bits apart, turning what had been a homogeneous plasma into a web of filaments, sheets... and voids.

These baryon acoustic oscillations, that occurred so soon after the Big Bang it's hard to even wrap my brain around a number that small, are why we now have cosmic structures millions, or billions, of light years across.

So that's our mindblowing science for today.  Gravitationally-linked structures that span one-tenth of the size of the observable universe, and spaces in between containing damn near nothing at all, all because of a ripple that passed through the universe when it was way under one second old.

If that doesn't make you realize that all of our trials and tribulations here on Earth are insignificant, nothing will.

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

Here are the answers to the puzzles from yesterday's post.  If you haven't finished thinking about them on your own, scroll no further!

1.  The census taker puzzle

The first clue is that the product of the daughters' ages is equal to 36.  There are eight possible trios of numbers that multiply to 36: (1, 1, 36), (1, 2, 18), (1, 3, 12), (1, 4, 9), (1, 6, 6), (2, 2, 9), (2, 3, 6), and (3, 3, 4).  Clue #2 is that the ages sum to equal the house number across the street, so the next step is to figure out what the house number could be.  Respectively: 38, 21, 16, 14, 13, 13, 11, and 10.

The key here is that when the census taker looks at the house number across the street, he still can't figure it out.  So it can't be (1, 4, 9), for example -- because if it was, as soon as he saw that the house number was 14, he'd know that was the only possible answer.  The fact that even after seeing the house number, he still doesn't know the answer, means it has to be one of the two trios of numbers that sums to the same thing -- 13.  So it either has to be (1, 6, 6) or (2, 2, 9).

Then, clue #3 is that the man's oldest daughter has red hair.  In the first possibility, there is no oldest daughter -- the oldest children are twins.  So his daughters have to be a nine-year-old and a pair of two-year-old twins.

2.  The St. Ives riddle

The answer is one.  "As I was going to St. Ives..." -- it doesn't say a thing about where the other people he met were going, if anywhere.

3.  The bear

It's a white bear.  The only place on Earth you could walk a mile south, a mile east, and a mile north and end up back where you started is if your starting place was the North Pole.

4.  A curious sequence

The pattern is that it's the names of the single digit numbers in English, in alphabetical order.  So the next one in the sequence is 3.

5.  Classifying the letters

The letters are classified by their symmetry.  (The capital letters only, of course.)  Group 1 is symmetrical around a vertical line, Group 2 around a horizontal line, Group 3 is around either a horizontal or a vertical line, Group 4 has no line symmetry but is symmetrical through a 180-degree rotation around their central point, and Group 5 are asymmetrical.

6.  The light bulb puzzle

Turn on switch one, and leave it on.  Turn on switch two for ten minutes, then turn it off.  Leave switch three off.  Go up to the tenth floor.  The bulb operated by switch one will be on; the one operated by switch two will be dark, but hot; and the one operated by switch three will be dark and cold.

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

Lateral thinking

One of the biggest impediments to clear thinking is the fact that it's so hard for us to keep in mind that we could be wrong.

As journalist Kathryn Schulz put it:

I asked you how it felt to be wrong, and you had answers like humiliating, frustrating, embarrassing, devastating.  And those are great answers.  But they're answers to a different question.  Those are answers to the question, "How does it feel to find out you're wrong?"  But being wrong?  Being wrong doesn't feel like anything...  You remember those characters on Saturday morning cartoons, the Coyote and the Roadrunner?  The Coyote was always doing things like running off a cliff, and when he'd do that, he'd run along for a while, not seeing that he was already over the edge.  It was only when he noticed it that he'd start to fall.  That's what being wrong is like before you've realized it.  You're already wrong, you're already in trouble...  So I should amend what I said earlier.  Being wrong does feel like something.

It feels like being right.

We cling desperately to the sense that we have it all figured out, that we're right about everything.  Oh, in theoretical terms we realize we're fallible; all of us can remember times we've been wrong.  But right here, right now?  It's like my college friend's quip, "I used to be conceited, but now I'm perfect."

The trouble with all this is that it blinds us to the errors that we do make, because if you don't keep at least trying to question your own answers, you won't see your own blunders.  It's why lateral thinking puzzles are so difficult, but so important; they force you to set aside the usual conventions of how puzzles are solved, and to question your own methods and intuitions at every step.  This was the subject of a study by Andrew Meyer (of the Chinese University of Hong Kong) and Shane Frederick (of Yale University) that appeared in the journal Cognition last week.  They looked at a standard lateral thinking puzzle, and tried to figure out how to get people to avoid falling into thinking their (usually incorrect) first intuition was right.

The puzzle was a simple computation problem:

A bat and a ball together cost $1.10.  The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball.  How much does the ball cost?

The most common error is simply to subtract the two, and to come up with ten cents as the cost of the ball.  But a quick check of the answer should show this can't be right.  If the bat costs a dollar and the ball costs ten cents, then the bat costs ninety cents more than the ball, not a dollar more (as the problem states).  The correct answer is that the ball costs $0.05 and the bat costs $1.05 -- the sum is $1.10, and the difference is an even dollar.

Meyer and Frederick tried different strategies for improving people's success.  Bolding the words "more than the ball" in the problem, to call attention to the salient point, had almost no effect at all.  Then they tried three different levels of warnings:

1. Be careful!  Many people miss this problem.
2. Be careful!  Many people miss the following problem because they do not take the time to check their answer.
3. Be careful!  Many people miss the following problem because they read it too quickly and actually answer a different question than the one that was asked.

All of these improved success, but not by as much as you might think.  The number of people who got the correct answer went up by only about ten percent, no matter which warning was used.

Then the researchers decided to be about as blatant as you can get, and put in a bolded statement, "HINT: The answer is NOT ten cents!"  This had the best improvement rate of all, but amazingly, still didn't eliminate all of the wrong answers.  Some people were so certain their intuition was right that they stuck to their guns -- apparently assuming that the researchers were deliberately trying to mislead them!

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons © Nevit Dilmen, Question mark 1, CC BY-SA 3.0]

If you find this tendency a little unsettling... well, you should.  It's one thing to stick to a demonstrably wrong answer in some silly hypothetical bat-and-ball problem; it's another thing entirely to cling to incorrect intuition or erroneous understanding when it affects how you live, how you act, how you vote.

It's why learning how to suspend judgment is so critical.  To be able to hold a question in your mind and not immediately jump to what seems like the "obvious answer" is one of the most important things there is.  I used to assign lateral thinking puzzles to my Critical Thinking students every so often -- I told them, "Think of these as mental calisthenics.  They're a way to exercise your problem-solving ability and look at problems from angles you might not think of right away.  Don't rush to find an answer; keep considering them until you're sure you're on the right track."

So I thought I'd throw a few of the more entertaining puzzles at you.  None of them involve much in the way of math (nothing past adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing), but all of them take an insight that requires pushing aside your first impression of how problems are solved.  Enjoy!  (I'll include the answers at the end of tomorrow's post, if any of them stump you.)

1.  The census taker problem

A census taker goes to a man's house, and asks for the ages of the man's three daughters.

"The product of their ages is 36," the man says.

The census taker replies, "That's not enough information to figure it out."

The man says, "Okay, well, the sum of their ages is equal to the house number across the street."

The census taker looks out of the window at the house across the street, and says, "I'm sorry, that's still not enough information to figure it out."

The man says, "Okay... my oldest daughter has red hair."

The census taker says, "Thank you," and writes down the ages.

How old are the three daughters?

2. The St. Ives riddle

The St. Ives riddle is a famous puzzle that goes back to (at least) the seventeenth century:

As I was going to St. Ives,
I met a man with seven wives.
Each wife had seven kids,
Each kid had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits.
Kits, cats, kids, and wives, how many were going to St. Ives?

3.  The bear

A man goes for a walk.  He walks a mile south, a mile east, and a mile north, and after that is back where he started.  At that point, he sees a large bear rambling around.  What color is the bear?

4.  A curious sequence

What is the next number in this sequence: 8, 5, 4, 9, 1, 7, 6...

5.  Classifying the letters

You can classify the letters in the English alphabet as follows:

Group 1: A, M, T, U, V, W, Y

Group 2: B, C, D, E, K

Group 3: H, I, O, X

Group 4: N, S, Z

Group 5: F, G, J, L, P, Q, R

What's the reason for grouping them this way?

6.  The light bulb puzzle

At the top of a ten-story building are three ordinary incandescent light bulbs screwed into electrical sockets.  On the first floor are three switches, one for each bulb, but you don't know which switch turns on which bulb, and you can't see the bulbs (or their light) from the place where the switches are located.  How can you determine which switch operates which bulb... and only take a single trip from the first floor up to the tenth?

Have fun!

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