Bench Press

I’ve mentioned before that I’m a sucker for the indirect observational techniques that one engages in when doing astronomy/astrophysics. One phenomena that astronomers have yet to be able to observe in any depth is also one of the most fascinating consequences of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity: gravitational waves.

A rigorous understanding of gravitational waves is far beyond the scope of this post (and also far far far far far far beyond my limited comprehension), but the basic concept comes from Einstein’s idea that gravity as we know it is actually a “bending” in spacetime that happens wherever there is mass. This curvature is what causes most of the effects of gravity that we can observe (i.e. you feel a pull towards the center of the Earth because the Earth’s mass bends the neighboring spacetime that you are in). As the Earth moves around the Sun (and as the Sun moves around the Milky Way galaxy and as the Milky Way moves…), the curvature in spacetime also moves with it. In certain types of motion (i.e. when an object is part of a binary orbiting system), this movement in spacetime curvature actually results in “waves” of spacetime curvature emanating outwards, kind of like ripples in a pond. These “waves” are called gravitational waves and, because they carry energy, are also called gravitational radiation. Because of the nature of these waves, they have three unique properties which make them interesting tools in the study of astronomy:

• they move at the speed of light
• unlike light, these waves don’t get significantly scattered/blocked
• they don’t require the existence of matter (so they can be used to study black holes)

The problem? They are extremely difficult to detect, because their effects are remarkably small. In fact, the first indirect observation of gravitational waves, found in the change in orbits of the Hulse-Taylor binary system (pictured above-right) won the researchers the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics.

So, what to do? While there have been many attempts to do this, they are plagued by the difficulty of detecting such weak waves in the presence of as much noise on Earth. Potential solution? The use of a multinational space-borne laser interferometry setup called LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna). With the use of laser light and interferometry (which allows you to measure small changes in distance by observing interference between a beam of light and a reflection), three identical solar-powered spacecraft will be set up in an equilateral triangle orbiting the sun at an angle relative to where the plane of the orbit of the other planets in the solar system (see below).

What’s especially remarkable is the precautions NASA is taking with the LISA spacecraft to correct for error and insure greater accuracy and precision in their measurements:

• Use of microthrusters to maintain drag-free flight by constantly monitoring the position of the test-weights the LISA spacecraft is flying around (and maintaining position of the instruments relative to the test-weights of ~10nm)
• Use of a transponder (which calculates the phase of an incoming beam of laser light and electronically setting the phase of the outgoing beams) instead of a mirror for interferometry to avoid diffraction (light scattering) from a traditional reflection approach
• Use of time-delay interferometry and continuous frequency monitoring/stabilization to correct for the effects of frequency noise

Given the technology and the theory involved, LISA’s potential to change astronomy could potentially rival the Hubble telescope’s, opening up new ways to study distant astronomical phenomena and potentially some of the more exotic topics in physics like string theory and strong-field gravity. There’s a lot more information on the potential topics of scientific inquiry which LISA could be used to study on NASA’s LISA science page.

Let’s cross our fingers that it will stay on schedule for launch in the 2018-2020 range and deliver not only concrete observations of gravitational waves but a whole wealth of information on the universe we live in.

(Image credit: NASA) (Image credit: NASA)

One of the best ways for scientists to reach out to the general public is through video. This past Friday, I got a chance to experience this firsthand at the IMAX theater at Boston’s New England Aquarium. A while back, I had caught the trailer for Hubble 3D at an IMAX movie and, given my love for all things Hubble, I had wanted to catch a showing. Seeing that the Hubble special was only ~40 minutes long, I decided to also buy a ticket for Under the Sea 3D as well.

And, as my Tweets that day pointed out, I was blown away:

There are some today who think high-def/3D is usually a gimmick by movie studios and digital display sellers, but that was definitely not true for either of these films. The 3D really enhanced the impact of the visuals. It let the audience, many of whom are unlikely to ever conduct spacewalks or scuba-dive where the Under the Sea 3D crew went to really feel what it was like to see undersea life. And, in the case of some of the deep space Hubble 3D shots, it gave the audience a very cool new look at objects so far away that its almost inconceivable that human beings will ever actually get to visit them.

Couple that with strong performances on interesting material by Leonardo DiCaprio in Hubble 3D and Jim Carrey in Under the Sea 3D and you get a strong combination which, if I’m any judge, not only gives the audience a juicy taste of why science is cool, but why its important to continue to study it.

I have definitely been sold on these, and I not only plan to check out more of these as they come out (I’ve got my eye on Sea Rex 3D), but would recommend this to anyone who has an hour to spend or would like to check out a visually stunning way to learn something new.

Despite all the cool and meaningful innovations we’ve discussed on this blog, few come as close in terms of impact on a scientific field as the Hubble Space Telescope. And this weekend, you can help celebrate it’s birthday!

Officially launched on April 24, 1990 (can you believe that was 20 years ago!?), it has provided one of humanity’s best looks into deep space and has, among other things:

• Helped refine the field’s understanding of Hubble’s Law and the Hubble Constant
• Showed that the expansion of the universe was not decelerating, but accelerating, suggesting the existence of dark energy
• Helped to establish the existence of massive black holes at the center of galaxies and their relationships
• Provided sharp images of the impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 into Jupiter
• Collect data on extrasolar planets and protoplanetary discs
• Furthered the study of Wolf-Rayet Stars, suspected to be the precursors of Gamma-ray bursts, the most powerful energy bursts known in the universe
• The mindblowing look 13 billion years into the past known as the Hubble Deep Field

And, potentially, most important of all: the gorgeous pictures of deep space (from Space Telescope Science Institute’s HubbleSite website).

Happy 20th birthday, Hubble!

(Image credits – Hubble Site via Space Telescope Science Institute)

I suspect that most people who enter the sciences are inspired by tales of the great scientists of yesteryear: bold luminaries who, through brilliance and ingenuity, helped uncovered the laws which govern the universe. For me, one of the most inspiring stories was that of Albert Einstein who, as a mere clerk in a Swiss patent office, published four papers which shook the foundations of physics in the span of one year! After all, who becomes a scientist who doesn’t have the dream of making a discovery or two so great that you become recognized as Person of the Century?

But, is this conception of science as a world where scientific Davids slay the Goliaths of orthodoxy and ignorance too romantic to be accurate? Is science still a field driven by brilliant individuals? This is a question which was top of mind for those attending the meeting of the International Astronomical Union, held in Rio de Janeiro from Aug 3-14, 2009 (HT: The Economist).

While theoreticians and well-funded groups in certain fields may still be able to comfortably push the “lone ranger” model of scientific research, in many areas (especially astronomy), the scientific frontier is being increasingly dominated by massive endeavors which consume enormous amounts of resources. After all, if your brilliant idea requires long, uninterrupted access to the Hubble Space telescope (i.e. the Hubble Deep field), you either get in line and save up, or you try to convince the rest of the astronomical community that your idea is worth pursuing (over their own, other, projects). This need to allocate very limited resources to a wide range of demands in astronomy has led to what The Economist refers to as “managerialism”:

The present is a “golden age” [for astronomy]. The rate of discoveries has been increasing, along with the means to keep up with the details. That has, in turn, led to bigger and more expensive telescopes, and the introduction of management techniques intended to ensure the smooth running of large projects. But it is that managerialism that is beginning to worry some of the more thoughtful members of the union. They fear that although it brings short-term benefits, it may, in the long run, crush individual flair.

This same clash between the desire to foster scientific Davids, but the need to build scientific Goliaths in order to use the latest and greatest (and most expensive) equipment is probably not unique to astronomy. After all, advances in technology have made possible new types of visualization (i.e. Imaging Mass Spectrometry to visualize how and where molecules move within a cell), new collections of vast amounts of data (i.e. the Diseasome), and even new ways of analyzing these new vast collections of data (i.e. the Millennium Simulation).

So is the “lone ranger” scientist doomed to have to one day ride off into the sunset? I don’t think so.

As we’ve discussed many times here at Bench Press, there are still plenty of innovative and relatively low-cost things that enthusiasts and scientists can do to push scientific inquiry. While there is no doubt that a lot of good can and will come out of big projects requiring costly equipment (I’m looking at you, LHC!), I think we’re far from the point where all experiments and models require multi-billion dollar investments.

Furthermore, while more expensive technology has made it more expensive to do experiments at the cutting edge, the advance of technology has made many other forms of inquiry much cheaper. For instance, technology has now made it possible for more and more people to collaborate and have access to data and the computational tools needed to analyze and report on it. If you had told Watson and Crick back in 1953, that every researcher would one day be able to as easily search a public database of nearly every gene and DNA/RNA sequence known for a match as they could read a book, they probably would’ve thought you were insane. And yet, today, I can not only randomly and arbitrarily search as many sequences as I want by using the NIH’s BLAST tool, I can quickly and cheaply deploy my own computing cluster using Amazon EC2 or, for specific types of computational workloads, even a graphics card/GPU!

I also think that, on some level, the fears about growing managerialism come from people who dramatically underestimate the value of collaboration between multiple scientists who can bring multiple specialties to the table, and the new ease of collaboration enabled by tools like Google Wave and Friendfeed.

In any event, even the field of astronomy seems to be trying to swing the pendulum back in favor of the Davids and Lone Rangers of the world:

Dr White suggests astronomers should ensure small science can flourish alongside its larger counterpart by, for example, ensuring that telescopes designed to look for big fish can also be used for projects that might be considered as small fry.

Another way to encourage gifted individuals might be to reform the way time on telescopes is allocated. The IAU’s new president, Robert Williams of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, is a supporter of this idea. He reckons decisions about who gets what observing time should be made by the directors of observatories, answerable to a governing body, rather than by groups of the great and good, as tends to happen now.

Williams is a particularly good authority on this – as he was one of those responsible for allotting the time necessary for Hubble’s Deep Field to be captured.

Viva la Lone Ranger!

(Image credit – Einstein) (Image credit – the Lone Ranger)

The most amazing thing about social media services like Twitter and Friendfeed is how rapidly you can find interesting articles and links. One of my good friends on Twitter, Charles Ju, recently pointed me to a picture which he only described as “this picture blows my mind”.

And sure enough, it completely blew my mind. I re-shared it on my own FriendFeed (garnering a couple of comments/responses from my own Twitter followers and Friendfeed friends) If you didn’t understand the scale of the universe before, this will put it all into perspective:

A big wow for:

1. How powerful social media services like Twitter and Friendfeed are for disseminating cool information/factoids/images
2. How vast the universe is
3. The capability of the Hubble Space Telescope to amass information about our universe

PS: If you’d like to follow the Bench Press authors on Friendfeed/Twitter you can follow me at http://www.friendfeed.com/benjamintseng, Kevin at http://friendfeed.com/ktseng, and Anthony at http://friendfeed.com/atphan.