Sunday, June 5, 2016

NASA IMAGE - Hubble Rocks with a Heavy-Metal Home

Hubble Rocks with a Heavy-Metal Home: This 10.5-billion-year-old globular cluster, NGC 6496, is home to heavy-metal stars of a celestial kind! The stars comprising this spectacular spherical cluster are enriched with much higher proportions of metals — elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are curiously known as metals in astronomy — than stars found in similar clusters.


Original enclosures:


Thursday, June 2, 2016

EINSTEIN RING - New ‘Einstein Ring’ Discovered By Dark Energy Camera

New ‘Einstein Ring’ Discovered By Dark Energy Camera:



The "Canarias Einstein Ring." The green-blue ring is the source galaxy, the red one in the middle is the lens galaxy. The lens galaxy has such strong gravity, that it distorts the light from the source galaxy into a ring. Because the two galaxies are aligned, the source galaxy appears almost circular. Image: This composite image is made up from several images taken with the DECam camera on the Blanco 4m telescope at the Cerro Tololo Observatory in Chile.


A rare object called an Einstein Ring has been discovered by a team in the Stellar Populations group at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) in Spain. An Einstein Ring is a specific type of gravitational lensing.



Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicted the phenomena of gravitational lensing. Gravitational lensing tells us that instead of travelling in a straight line, light from a source can be bent by a massive object, like a black hole or a galaxy, which itself bends space time.



Einstein's General Relativity was published in 1915, but a few years before that, in 1912, Einstein predicted the bending of light. Russian physicist Orest Chwolson was the first to mention the ring effect in scientific literature in 1924, which is why the rings are also called Einstein-Chwolson rings.



Gravitational lensing is fairly well-known, and many gravitational lenses have been observed. Einstein rings are rarer, because the observer, source, and lens all have to be aligned. Einstein himself thought that one would never be observed at all. "Of course, there is no hope of observing this phenomenon directly," Einstein wrote in 1936.



[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1bZcdE9zP0[/embed]



The team behind the recent discovery was led by PhD student Margherita Bettinelli at the University of La Laguna, and Antonio Aparicio and Sebastian Hidalgo of the Stellar Populations group at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) in Spain. Because of the rarity of these objects, and the strong scientific interest in them, this one was given a name: The Canarias Einstein Ring.



There are three components to an Einstein Ring. The first is the observer, which in this case means telescopes here on Earth. The second is the lens galaxy, a massive galaxy with enormous gravity. This gravity warps space-time so that not only are objects drawn to it, but light itself is forced to travel along a curved path. The lens lies between Earth and the third component, the source galaxy. The light from the source galaxy is bent into a ring form by the power of the lens galaxy.



When all three components are aligned precisely, which is very rare, the light from the source galaxy is formed into a circle with the lens galaxy right in the centre. The circle won't be perfect; it will have irregularities that reflect irregularities in the gravitational force of the lens galaxy.







The objects are more than just pretty artifacts of nature. They can tell scientists things about the nature of the lens galaxy. Antonio Aparicio, one of the IAC astrophysicists involved in the research said, "Studying these phenomena gives us especially relevant information about the composition of the source galaxy, and also about the structure of the gravitational field and of the dark matter in the lens galaxy."



Looking at these objects is like looking back in time, too. The source galaxy is 10 billion light years from Earth. Expansion of the Universe means that the light has taken 8.5 billion light years to reach us. That's why the ring is blue; that long ago, the source galaxy was young, full of hot blue stars.



The lens itself is much closer to us, but still very distant. It's 6 billion light years away. Star formation in that galaxy likely came to a halt, and its stellar population is now old.



The discovery of the Canarias Einstein Ring was a happy accident. Bettinelli was pouring over data from what's known as the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) of the 4m Blanco Telescope at the Cerro Tololo Observatory, in Chile. She was studying the stellar population of the Sculptor dwarf galaxy for her PhD when the Einstein Ring caught her attention. Other members of the Stellar Population Group then used OSIRIS spectrograph on the Gran Telescopio CANARIAS (GTC) to observe and analyze it further.

















The post New ‘Einstein Ring’ Discovered By Dark Energy Camera appeared first on Universe Today.

METEORITE BLADE - -Tutankhamun’s Meteorite Blade

Tutankhamun’s Meteorite Blade:



The Egyptian Pyramids; instantly recognizable to almost anyone. Image: Armstrong White, CC BY 2.0


The spread of metallurgy in different civilizations is a keen point of interest for historians and archaeologists. It helps chart the rise and fall of different cultures. There are even names for the different ages corresponding to increasingly sophisticated metallurgical technologies: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age.



But sometimes, a piece of evidence surfaces that doesn't fit our understanding of a civilization.



[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch? Probably the most iconic ancient civilization in all of history is ancient Egypt. Its pyramids are instantly recognizable to almost anyone. When King Tutankhamun's almost intact tomb was discovered in 1922, it was a treasure trove of artifacts. And though the tomb, and King Tut, are most well-known for the golden death mask, it's another, little-known artifact that has perhaps the most intriguing story: King Tut's iron dagger.







King Tut's iron-bladed dagger wasn't discovered until 1925, three years after the tomb was discovered. It was hidden in the wrappings surrounding Tut's mummy. It's mere existence was a puzzle, because King Tut reigned in 1332–1323 BC, 600 years before the Egyptians developed iron smelting technology.







It was long thought, but never proven, that the blade may be made of meteorite iron. In the past, tests have produced inconclusive results. But according to a new study led by Daniela Comelli, of the Polytechnic University of Milan, and published in the Journal of Meteoritics and Planetary Science, there is no doubt that a meteorite was the source of iron for the blade.



The team of scientists behind the study used a technique called x-ray fluorescence spectrometry to determine the chemical composition of the blade. This technique aims x-rays at an artifact, then determines its composition by the spectrum of colors given off. Those results were then compared with 11 other meteorites.



In the dagger's case, the results indicated Fe plus 10.8 wt% Ni and 0.58 wt% Co. This couldn't be a coincidence, since iron meteorites are mostly made of Fe (Iron) and Ni (Nickel), with minor quantities of Co (Cobalt), P (Phosphorus), S (Sulphur), and C (Carbon). Iron found in the Earth's crust has almost no Ni content.



Testing of Egyptian artifacts is a tricky business. Egypt is highly protective of their archaeological resources. This study was possible only because of advances in portable x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, which meant the dagger didn't have to be taken to a lab and could be tested at the Egyptian Museum of Cairo.



Iron objects were rare in Egypt at that time, and were considered more valuable than gold. They were mostly decorative, probably because ancient Egyptians found iron very difficult to work. It requires a very high heat to work with, which was not possible in ancient Egypt.







Even without the ability to heat and work iron, a great deal of craftsmanship went into the blade. The dagger itself had to be hammered into shape, and it features a decorated golden handle and a rounded rock crystal knob. It's golden sheath is decorated with a jackal's head and a pattern of feathers and lilies.



Ancient Egyptians probably new what they were working with. They called meteorite iron from the sky in one hieroglyph. Whether they knew with absolute certainty that their iron meteorites came from the sky, and what that might have meant, they did value the iron. As the authors of the study say, "...our study confirms that ancient Egyptians attributed great value to meteoritic iron for the production of precious objects."



The authors go on to say, "Moreover, the high manufacturing quality of Tutankhamun's dagger blade, in comparison with other simple-shaped meteoritic iron artifacts, suggests a significant mastery of ironworking in Tutankhamun's time."





The post Tutankhamun’s Meteorite Blade appeared first on Universe Today.

MOON'S WATER - Scientists Identify the Source of the Moon’s Water

Scientists Identify the Source of the Moon’s Water:



New research finds that asteroids delivered as much 80 percent of the Moon's water. Credit: LPI/David A. Kring


Over the course of the past few decades, our ongoing exploration the Solar System has revealed some surprising discoveries. For example, while we have yet to find life beyond our planet, we have discovered that the elements necessary for life (i.e organic molecules, volatile elements, and water) are a lot more plentiful than previously thought. In the 1960's, it was theorized that water ice could exist on the Moon; and by the next decade, sample return missions and probes were confirming this.

Since that time, a great deal more water has been discovered, which has led to a debate within the scientific community as to where it all came from. Was it the result of in-situ production, or was it delivered to the surface by water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteorites? According to a recent study produced by a team of scientists from the UK, US and France, the majority of the Moon's water appears to have come from meteorites that delivered water to Earth and the Moon billions of years ago.

For the sake of their study, which appeared recently in Nature Communications, the international research team examined the samples of lunar rock and soil that were returned by the Apollo missions. When these samples were originally examined upon their return to Earth, it was assumed that the trace of amounts of water they contained were the result of contamination from Earth's atmosphere since the containers in which the Moon rocks were brought home weren't airtight. The Moon, it was widely believed, was bone dry.

However, a 2008 study revealed that the samples of volcanic glass beads contained water molecules (46 parts per million), as well as various volatile elements (chlorine, fluoride and sulfur) that could not have been the result of contamination. This was followed up by the deployment of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) in 2009, which discovered abundant supplies of water around the southern polar region,

However, that which was discovered on the surface paled in comparison the water that was discovered beneath it. Evidence of water in the interior was first revealed by the ISRO's Chandrayaan-1 lunar orbiter - which carried the NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) and delivered it to the surface. Analysis of this and other data has showed that water in the Moon's interior is up to a million times more abundant than what's on the surface.

The presence of so much water beneath the surface has begged the question, where did it all come from? Whereas water that exists on the Moon's surface in lunar regolith appears to be the result of interaction with solar wind, this cannot account for the abundant sources deep underground. A previous study suggested that it came from Earth, as the leading theory for the Moon's formation is that a large Mars-sized body impacted our nascent planet about 4.5 billion years ago, and the resulting debris formed the Moon. The similarity between water isotopes on both bodies seems to support that theory.

However, according to Dr. David A. Kring, a member of the research team that was led by Jessica Barnes from Open University, this explanation can only account for about a quarter of the water inside the moon. This, apparently, is due to the fact that most of the water would not have survived the processes involved in the formation of the Moon, and keep the same ratio of hydrogen isotopes.

Instead, Kring and his colleagues examined the possibility that water-bearing meteorites delivered water to both (hence the similar isotopes) after the Moon had formed. As Dr. Kring told Universe Today via email:

"The current study utilized analyses of lunar samples that had been collected by the Apollo astronauts, because those samples provide the best measure of the water inside the Moon. We compared those analyses with analyses of meteoritic samples from asteroids and spacecraft analyses of comets."
By comparing the ratios of hydrogen to deuterium (aka. "heavy hydrogen") from the Apollo samples and known comets, they determined that a combination of primitive meteorites (carbonaceous chondrite-type) were responsible for the majority of water to be found in the Moon's interior today. In addition, they concluded that these types of comets played an important role when it comes to the origins of water in the inner Solar System.



For some time, scientists have argued that the abundance of water on Earth may be due in part to impacts from comets, trans-Neptunian objects or water-rich meteoroids. Here too, this was based on the fact that the ratio of the hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and protium) in asteroids like 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko revealed a similar percentage of impurities to carbon-rich chondrites that were found in the Earth's coeans.

But how much of Earth's water was delivered, how much was produced indigenously, and whether or not the Moon was formed with its water already there, have remained the subject of much scholarly debate. Thank to this latest study, we may now have a better idea of how and when meteorites delivered water to both bodies, thus giving us a better understanding of the origins of water in the inner Solar System.

"Some meteoritic samples of asteroids contain up to 20% water," said Kring. "That reservoir of material – that is asteroids – are closer to the Earth-Moon system and, logically, have always been a good candidate source for the water in the Earth-Moon system. The current study shows that to be true. That water was apparently delivered 4.5 to 4.3 billion years ago."

The existence of water on the Moon has always been a source of excitement, particularly to those who hope to see a lunar base established there someday. By knowing the source of that water, we can also come to know more about the history of the Solar System and how it came to be. It will also come in handy when it comes time to search for other sources of water, which will always be a factor when trying to establishing outposts and even colonies throughout the Solar System.
Further Reading: Nature Communications

The post Scientists Identify the Source of the Moon’s Water appeared first on Universe Today.

SOLAR SYSTEM - What Are Planetary Transits?

What Are Planetary Transits?:

Thanks to Ptolemy and his cronies, everyone used to think that the Earth was the center of the Solar System, with the Sun, planets and even the stars orbiting around it on a series of concentric crystal spheres. It was a clever idea, and explained the motions of the planets… sort of.

Then Copernicus figured out in 1543, that the Earth isn’t the centre of the Solar System. In fact, it’s just one planet in a vast Solar System, with objects whirling and whirling around the Sun.

With the structure of the Solar System figured out, and the crystal sphere idea in the garbage, astronomers still had a big unknown: how big is the Solar System?

Was it a few million kilometers across, or hundreds of millions. How big is the Sun? How far away is Venus?

Astronomers needed some kind of cosmic yardstick to measure everything against. Figure out one piece of the puzzle, and then you could measure everything else in relation.

In 1627, Johannes Kepler figured out that the motion of Venus was predictable, and that Venus would pass in front of the Sun in 1631, probably in the afternoon.

A timelapse of Mercury transiting across the face of the Sun. Credit: NASA
A timelapse of Mercury transiting across the face of the Sun. Credit: NASA
This is known as a “transit” of Venus.

The first crude measurements of Venus’ motion across the Sun were made in 1639 by Jeremiah Horrocks and William Crabtree from two different spots in England. And with these two observations, they were able to calculate the geometry between the Earth, Venus and the Sun.

If you recall all those memories you’re repressing from your high school geometry, once you’ve got an angle and a side of a triangle, you can work out all the other parts of the triangle. Horrocks and Crabtree worked out the distance from the Earth to the Sun within about 2/3rd accuracy. Not bad, considering the fact that astronomers literally had no idea before this point.

Following on from this observation, astronomers returned to their telescopes with each transit of Venus, better refining their calculations, and eventually settling on the current distance of about 150 million kilometers.

The 1882 transit of Venus.
The 1882 transit of Venus.
From here on Earth, we can see a few objects pass in front of the Sun: Venus, Mercury and the Moon.

Venus transits are the most rare, happening two times every 108 years or so. Mercury transits happen more often, about a dozen times a century. And a transit of the Moon, also known as a solar eclipse, happens a few times a year, on average.

It’s all a matter of perspective. If you’re standing on the Moon, you might see the Earth pass in front of the Sun. We’d call that a lunar eclipse, while the lunatics would call it an Earth transit.

We can also see transits in other parts of the Solar System, like when moons pass in front of planets. For example, if you have a small telescope, you can see when Jupiter’s larger moons pass in front of the planet from our perspective.

One of the questions you might have, though, is why don’t these transits happen more often. Why don’t we see a Mercury or Venus transit every time they line up with us and the Sun.

This is because the planets aren’t exactly lined up at the same angle towards the Sun. All of the planets are inclined at an angle that takes them above or below the Sun at various points of their orbit.

For example, Venus’ orbit is inclined 3 degrees off the Sun’s equator, while the Earth is inclined 7 degrees. This means that most of the time that Venus and Earth are lined up, Venus is either above or below the Sun.

Are you an ageless vampire, or planning to live a long time in multiple robot bodies, then you’re in luck. In the year 69,163, there’ll be a double transit on the surface of Sun with both Mercury and Venus at the same time. Enjoy that while you contemplate the horror of your existence.

Once we become a true Solar System civilization, there will be even more opportunities for transits. People living on Mars will be able to see Mercury, Venus and even transits of Earth passing in front of the Sun. Neptunians will be bored they can see them so often.

The transit method is one of the ways that astronomers discover planets orbiting other stars. Using a space telescope like Kepler, they survey a portion of the night sky, watching the brightness of thousands of stars. When a planet perfectly passes directly in between us and a star, Kepler detects a drop in brightness.

Since its deployment in 2007, Kepler has confirmed the existence of over 2000 extra-solar planets. Credit: NASA
Since its deployment in 2007, Kepler has confirmed the existence of over 2000 extra-solar planets. Credit: NASA
When you think of the geometries involved, it’s amazing this even happens at all. But the Universe is a vast place. Even if only a tiny percentage of star systems are perfectly lined up with us, there are enough to help us discover thousands and thousands of planets.

Kepler has turned up Earth-sized worlds orbiting other stars, some of which are even orbiting in their planet’s habitable zone.

Watching planetary transits is more than just a fun astronomy event, they’re how astronomers figured out the size of the Solar System itself. And now they help us find other planets orbiting other stars.

So, let’s agree to meet up in 2117 to catch the next transit of Venus, and celebrate this amazing event.

The post What Are Planetary Transits? appeared first on Universe Today.

ALIEN MINDS - Part III: The Octopus’s Garden and the Country of the Blind

Alien Minds Part III: The Octopus’s Garden and the Country of the Blind:



METI logo


In our galaxy, there may be, at least, tens of billions of habitable planets, with conditions suitable for liquid water on their surfaces. There may be habitable moons as well. On an unknown number of those worlds, life may have arisen. On an unknown fraction of life-bearing worlds, life may have evolved into complex multicellular, sexually reproducing forms.



During its habitable period, a world with complex life might produce hundreds of millions of evolutionary lineages. One or a few of them might fortuitously encounter special circumstances that triggered runaway growth of their intelligence. These favored few, if they exist, might have built technological civilizations capable of signaling their presence across interstellar distances, or detecting and deciphering a message we send their way. What might such alien minds be like? What senses might they use? How might we communicate with them?





The purposes of the newly created METI (Messaging to ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) International include fostering multidisciplinary research in the design and transmission of interstellar messages, and building a global community of scholars from the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and arts concerned with the origin, distribution, and future of life in the universe.



On May 18 the organization sponsored a workshop which included presentations by biologists, psychologists, cognitive scientists, and linguists. This is the third and final installment of a series of articles about the workshop.



In previous installments, we’ve discussed some ideas about the evolution of intelligence that were featured at the workshop. Here we’ll see whether our Earthly experience can provide us with any clues about how we might communicate with aliens.



Many of the animals that we are most familiar with from daily life, like humans, cats, dogs, birds, fishes, and frogs are vertebrates, or animals with backbones. They are all descended from a common ancestor and share a nervous system organized according to the same basic plan.



Molluscs are another major group of animals that have been evolving separately from vertebrates for more than 600 million years. Although most molluscs, like slugs, snails, and shellfish, have fairly simple nervous systems, one group; the cephalopods, have evolved a much more sophisticated one.





Cephalopods include octopuses, squids, and cuttlefishes. They show cognitive and perceptual abilities rivaling those of our close vertebrate kin. Since this nervous system has a different evolutionary history than of the vertebrates, it is organized in a way completely different from our own. It can give us a glimpse of the similarities and differences we might expect between aliens and ourselves.



David Gire, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Washington, and researcher Dominic Sivitilli gave a presentation on cephalopods at the Puerto Rico workshop. Although these animals have a sophisticated brain, their nervous systems are much more decentralized than that of familiar animals. In the octopus, sensing and moving are controlled locally in the arms, which together contain as many nerve cells, or neurons, as the brain.



The animal’s eight arms are extraordinarily sensitive. Each containing hundreds of suckers, with thousands of sensory receptors on each one. By comparison, the human finger has only 241 sensory receptors per square centimeter. Many of these receptors sense chemicals, corresponding roughly to our senses of taste and smell. Much of this sensory information is processed locally in the arms. When an arm is severed from an octopus’s body, it continues to show simple behaviors on its own, and can even avoid threats. The octopus’s brain simply acts to coordinate the behaviors of its arms.



Cephalopods have acute vision. Although their eyes evolved separately from those of vertebrates, they nonetheless bear an eerie resemblance. They have a unique ability to change the pattern and color of their skin using pigment cells that are under direct control of their nervous systems. This provides them with the most sophisticated camouflage system of any animal on Earth, and is also used for social signaling.







Despite the sophisticated cognitive abilities it exhibits in the lab, the octopus is largely solitary.

Cephalopod groups exchange useful information by observing one another, but otherwise exhibit only limited social cooperation. Many current theories of the evolution of sophisticated intelligence, like Miller’s sapiosexual hypothesis, which was featured in the second installment, assume that social cooperation and competition play a central role in the evolution of complicated brains. Since cephalopods have evolved much more impressive cognitive abilities than other molluscs, their limited social behavior is surprising.



Maybe the limited social behavior of cephalopods really does set limits on their intelligence. However, Gire and Sivitilli speculate that perhaps “an intelligence capable of technological development could exist with minimum social acuity”, and the cephalopod ability to socially share information is enough. The individuals of such an alien collective, they suppose, might possess no sense of self or other.



Besides Gire and Sivitilli, Anna Dornhaus, whose ideas were featured in the first installment, also thinks that alien creatures might function together as a collective mind. Social insects, in some respects, actually do. She doubts, though, that such an entities could evolve human-like technological intelligence without something like Miller’s sapiosexuality to trigger a runaway explosion of intelligence.



But if non-sapiosexual alien technological civilizations do exist, we might find them impossible to comprehend. Given this possible gulf of incomprehension about social structure, Gire and Stivitilli suppose that the most we might aspire to accomplish in terms of interstellar communication is an exchange of mutually useful and comprehensible astronomical information.



Workshop presenter Alfred Kracher, a retired staff scientist at the Ames Laboratory of the University of Iowa, supposes that “the mental giants of the Milky Way are probably artificially intelligent machines… It would be interesting to find evidence of them, if they exist”, he writes, “but then what?” Kracher supposes that if they have emancipated themselves and evolved away from their makers, “they will have nothing in common with organic life forms, human or extraterrestrial. There is no chance of mutual understanding”. We will be able to understand aliens, he maintains, only if “it turns out that the evolution of extraterrestrial life forms is highly convergent with our own”.



Peter Todd, a professor of psychology from Indiana University, holds out hope that such convergence may actually occur. Earthly animals must solve a variety of basic problems that are presented by the physical and biological world that they inhabit.



They must effectively navigate through a world of surfaces, barriers and objects, finding food and shelter, and avoiding predators, parasites, toxins. Extraterrestrial organisms, if they evolve in an Earth-like environment, would face a generally similar set of problems. They may well arrive at similar solutions, just as the octopus evolved eyes similar to ours.



In evolution here on Earth, Todd notes, brain systems originally evolved to solve these basic physical and biological problems appear to have been re-purposed to solve new and more difficult problems, as some animals evolved to solve the problems of living and finding mates as members of societies, and then as one particular age species went on to evolve conceptual reasoning and language. For example, disgust at bad food, useful for avoiding disease, may have been become the foundation for sexual disgust to avoid bad mates, moral disgust to avoid bad clan mates, and intellectual disgust to avoid dubious ideas.



If alien brains evolved solutions similar to the ones our brains did for negotiating the physical and biological world, they they might also have been re-purposed in similar ways. Alien minds might not be wholly different from ours, and thus hope exists for a degree of mutual understanding.



In the early 1970’s the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft were launched on the first exploratory missions to the planet Jupiter and beyond. When their missions were completed, these two probes became the first objects made by humans to escape the sun’s gravitational pull and hurtle into interstellar space.



Because of the remote possibility that the spacecraft might someday be found by extraterrestrials, a team of scientists and scholars lead by Carl Sagan emplaced a message on the vehicle, etched on a metal plaque. The message consisted, in part, of a line drawing of a man and a woman. Later, the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft carried a message that consisted, in part, of a series of 116 digital images encoded on a phonographic record.



The assumption that aliens would see and understand images seems reasonable, since the octopus evolved an eye so similar to our own. And that’s not all. The evolutionary biologists Luitfried Von Salvini-Plawen and Ernst Mayr showed that eyes, of various sorts, have evolved forty separate times on Earth, and vision is typically a dominant sense for large, land dwelling animals. Still, there are animals that function without it, and our earliest mammalian ancestors were nocturnal. Could it be that there are aliens that lack vision, and could not understand a message based on images?



In his short story, The Country of the Blind, the great science fiction writer H. G. Wells imagined an isolated mountain village whose inhabitants had been blind for fifteen generations after a disease destroyed their vision.



A lost mountain climber, finding the village, imagines that with his power of vision, he can easily become their king. But the villagers have adapted thoroughly to a life based on touch, hearing, and smell. Instead of being impressed by their visitor’s claim that he can ‘see’, they find it incomprehensible. They begin to believe he is insane. And when they seek to ‘cure’ him by removing two strange globular growths from the front of his head, he flees.



Could their really be an alien country of the blind whose inhabitants function without vision? Workshop presenter Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen, an associate professor of Linguistics at Bowling Green State University, doesn’t need to imagine the country of the blind, because, in a sense, she lives there. She is blind, and believes that creatures without vision could achieve a level of technology sufficient to send interstellar messages. “Sighted people”, she writes, “tend to overestimate the amount and quality of information gathered by vision alone”.



Bats and dolphins image their dimly lit environments with a kind of naturally occurring sonar called echolocation. Blind human beings can also learn to echolocate, using tongue clicks or claps as emitted signals and analyzing the returning echoes by hearing. Some can do so well enough to ride a bicycle at a moderate pace through an unfamiliar neighborhood. A human can develop the touch sensitivity needed to read braille in four months. A blind marine biologist can proficiently distinguish the species of mollusc shells by touch.



Wells-Jensen posits a hypothetical civilization which she calls the Krikkits, who lack vision but possess sensory abilities otherwise similar to those of human beings. Could such beings build a technological society? Drawing on her knowledge of the blind community and a series of experiments, she thinks they could.



Finding food would present few special difficulties, since blind naturalists can identify many plant species by touch. Agriculture could be conducted as modern blind gardeners do it, by marking crops using stakes and piles of rock, and harvesting by feel. The combination of a stick used as a cane to probe the path ahead and echolocation make traveling by foot effective and safe. A loadstone compass would further aid navigational abilities. The Krikkits might use snares rather than spears or arrows to trap animals, making tools by touch.



Mathematics is vital to building a technological society. For most human beings, with our limited memory, a paper and pencil or a blackboard are essential for doing math. Krikkits would need to find other such aids, such as tactual symbols on clay tablets, abacus-like devices, or patterns sewn on hides or fabric.



Successful blind mathematicians often have prodigious memories, and can perform complex calculations in their heads. One of history’s greatest mathematicians, Leonard Euler, was blind for the last 17 years of his life, but remained mathematically productive through the use of his memory.



The obstacles to a blind society developing technology may not be insurmountable. Blind people are capable of handling fire and even working with molten glass. Krikkits might therefore use fire for cooking, warmth, to bake clay vessels, and smelt metal ores. Initially there only astronomical knowledge would be of the sun as a source of heat. Experiments with loadstones and metals would lead to a knowledge of electricity.



Eventually, the Krikkits might imitate their sonar with radio waves, inventing radar. If their planet possessed a moon or moons, radar reflections from them might provide their first knowledge of astronomical objects other than their sun. Radar would also enable them to learn for the first time that their planet is round.



The Krikkits might learn to detect other forms of radiation like X-rays and ‘light’. The ability to detect this second mysterious form of radiation might allow them to discover the existence of the stars and develop an interest in interstellar communication.



What sorts of messages might they send or understand? Well-Jensen believes that line drawings, like the drawing of the man and the woman on the Pioneer plaque, and other such pictorial representations might be an impenetrable mystery to them. On the other hand, she speculates that Krikkits might represent large data sets through sound, and that their counterpart to charts and graphs might be equally incomprehensible to us.



Images might pose a challenge for the Krikkits, but perhaps, Wells-Jensen concedes, not an impossible one. There is evidence that bats image their world using echolocation. Kikkits might be likely to evolve similar abilities, though Wells-Jensen believes they would not be essential for making tools or handling objects.



Perhaps humans and Krikkits could find common ground by transmitting instructions for three dimensional printed objects that could be explored tactually. Wells-Jensen thinks they might also understand mathematical or logical languages proposed for interstellar communication.



The diversity of cognition and perception that we find here on Earth teaches us that if extraterrestrial intelligence exists, it is likely to be much more alien than much of science fiction has prepared us to expect. In our attempt to communicate with aliens, the gulf of mutual incomprehension may yawn as wide as the gulf of interstellar space. Yet this is a gulf we must somehow cross, if we wish ever to become citizens of the galaxy.



For further reading:



Cain, F. (2008) Is Our Universe Ruled by Artificial Intelligence, Universe Today.



Kaufmann G. (2005) Spineless smarts, NOVA



Land, M. F., and Nilsson, D-E. (2002) Animal Eyes, Oxford University Press.



Mather, J. A. (2008) Cephalopod consciousness: Behavioral evidence, Cognition and Consciousness 17(1): 37-48.



Patton, P. E. (2016) Alien Minds I: Are Extraterrestrial Civilizations Likely to Evolve? Universe Today.



Patton, P. E. (2016) Alien Minds II: Do Aliens Think Big Brains are Sexy Too? Universe Today.



P. Patton (2014) Communicating across the cosmos, Part 1: Shouting into the darkness, Part 2: Petabytes from the Stars, Part 3: Bridging the Vast Gulf, Part 4: Quest for a Rosetta Stone, Universe Today.



Wells, H. G. (1904) The Country of the Blind, The literature network.

The post Alien Minds Part III: The Octopus’s Garden and the Country of the Blind appeared first on Universe Today.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

NEW PLANETS - Student Discovers Four New Planets

Student Discovers Four New Planets:



The four new, but as yet unconfirmed, exoplanets. Image: University of British Columbia


A student at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada, has discovered four new exoplanets hidden in data from the Kepler spacecraft.



Michelle Kunimoto recently graduated from UBC with a Bachelor's degree in physics and astronomy. As part of her coursework, she spent a few months looking closely at Kepler data, trying to find planets that others had overlooked.



In the end, she discovered four planets, (or planet candidates until they are independently confirmed.) The first planet is the size of Mercury, two are roughly Earth-sized, and one is slightly larger than Neptune. According to Kunimoto, the largest of the four, called KOI (Kepler Object of Interest) 408.05, is the most interesting. That one is 3,200 light years away from Earth and occupies the habitable zone of its star.



“Like our own Neptune, it’s unlikely to have a rocky surface or oceans,” said Kunimoto, who graduates today from UBC. “The exciting part is that like the large planets in our solar system, it could have large moons and these moons could have liquid water oceans.”



Her astronomy professor, Jaymie Matthews, shares her enthusiasm. “Pandora in the movie Avatar was not a planet, but a moon of a giant planet,” he said. And we all know what lived there.



[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXIauLV90p8[/embed]



On its initial mission, Kepler looked at 150,000 stars in the Milky Way. Kepler looks for dips in the brightness of these stars, which can be caused by planets passing between us and the star. These dips are called light curves, and they can tell us quite a bit about an exoplanet.



“A star is just a pinpoint of light so I’m looking for subtle dips in a star’s brightness every time a planet passes in front of it,” said Kunimoto. “These dips are known as transits, and they’re the only way we can know the diameter of a planet outside the solar system.”







One of the limitations of the Kepler mission is that it's biased against planets that take a long time to orbit their star. That's because the longer the orbit is, the fewer transits can be witnessed in a given amount of time. The "warm Neptune" KOI 408.05 found by Kunimoto takes 637 days to orbit its sun.



This long orbit explains why the planet was not found initially, and also why Kunimoto is receiving recognition for her discovery. It took a substantial commitment and effort to uncover it. Kepler has discovered almost 5,000 planet and planet candidates, and of those, only 20 have longer orbits than KOI 408.05.



Kunimoto and Matthews have submitted the findings to the Astronomical Journal. They may be the first of many submissions for Kunimoto, as she is returning to UBC next year to earn a Master's Degree in physics and astronomy, when she will hunt for more planets and investigate their habitability.



The fun didn't end with her exoplanet discovery, however. As a Star Trek fan (who isn't one?) she was lucky enough to meet William Shatner at an event at the University, and to share her discovery with Captain James Tiberius Kirk.



It makes you wonder what other surprises might lie hidden in the Kepler data, and what else might be uncovered. Might a life-bearing planet or moon, maybe the only one, be found in Kepler's data at some future time?



You can read Kunimoto's paper here.

The post Student Discovers Four New Planets appeared first on Universe Today.

How Was the Solar System Formed?

How Was the Solar System Formed?:



Solar System Themed Products


Since time immemorial, humans have been searching for the answer of how the Universe came to be. However, it has only been within the past few centuries, with the Scientific Revolution, that the predominant theories have been empirical in nature. It was during this time, from the 16th to 18th centuries, that astronomers and physicists began to formulate evidence-based explanations of how our Sun, the planets, and the Universe began.



When it comes to the formation of our Solar System, the most widely accepted view is known as the Nebular Hypothesis. In essence, this theory states that the Sun, the planets, and all other objects in the Solar System formed from nebulous material billions of years ago. Originally proposed to explain the origin of the Solar System, this theory has gone on to become a widely accepted view of how all star systems came to be.



Nebular Hypothesis:

According to this theory, the Sun and all the planets of our Solar System began as a giant cloud of molecular gas and dust. Then, about 4.57 billion years ago, something happened that caused the cloud to collapse. This could have been the result of a passing star, or shock waves from a supernova, but the end result was a gravitational collapse at the center of the cloud.



https://youtu.be/gLzsnITQZaE



From this collapse, pockets of dust and gas began to collect into denser regions. As the denser regions pulled in more and more matter, conservation of momentum caused it to begin rotating, while increasing pressure caused it to heat up. Most of the material ended up in a ball at the center while the rest of the matter flattened out into disk that circled around it. While the ball at the center formed the Sun, the rest of the material would form into the protoplanetary disc.



The planets formed by accretion from this disc, in which dust and gas gravitated together and coalesced to form ever larger bodies. Due to their higher boiling points, only metals and silicates could exist in solid form closer to the Sun, and these would eventually form the terrestrial planets of Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. Because metallic elements only comprised a very small fraction of the solar nebula, the terrestrial planets could not grow very large.



In contrast, the giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) formed beyond the point between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter where material is cool enough for volatile icy compounds to remain solid (i.e. the Frost Line). The ices that formed these planets were more plentiful than the metals and silicates that formed the terrestrial inner planets, allowing them to grow massive enough to capture large atmospheres of hydrogen and helium. Leftover debris that never became planets congregated in regions such as the Asteroid Belt, Kuiper Belt, and Oort Cloud.







Within 50 million years, the pressure and density of hydrogen in the center of the protostar became great enough for it to begin thermonuclear fusion. The temperature, reaction rate, pressure, and density increased until hydrostatic equilibrium was achieved. At this point, the Sun became a main-sequence star. Solar wind from the Sun created the heliosphere and swept away the remaining gas and dust from the protoplanetary disc into interstellar space, ending the planetary formation process.



History of the Nebular Hypothesis:

The idea that the Solar System originated from a nebula was first proposed in 1734 by Swedish scientist and theologian Emanual Swedenborg. Immanuel Kant, who was familiar with Swedenborg's work, developed the theory further and published it in his Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (1755). In this treatise, he argued that gaseous clouds (nebulae) slowly rotate, gradually collapsing and flattening due to gravity and forming stars and planets.



A similar but smaller and more detailed model was proposed by Pierre-Simon Laplace in his treatise Exposition du system du monde (Exposition of the system of the world), which he released in 1796. Laplace theorized that the Sun originally had an extended hot atmosphere throughout the Solar System, and that this "protostar cloud" cooled and contracted. As the cloud spun more rapidly, it threw off material that eventually condensed to form the planets.







The Laplacian nebular model was widely accepted during the 19th century, but it had some rather pronounced difficulties. The main issue was angular momentum distribution between the Sun and planets, which the nebular model could not explain. In addition, Scottish scientist James Clerk Maxwell (1831 - 1879) asserted that different rotational velocities between the inner and outer parts of a ring could not allow for condensation of material.



It was also rejected by astronomer Sir David Brewster (1781 - 1868), who stated that:



"those who believe in the Nebular Theory consider it as certain that our Earth derived its solid matter and its atmosphere from a ring thrown from the Solar atmosphere, which afterwards contracted into a solid terraqueous sphere, from which the Moon was thrown off by the same process... [Under such a view] the Moon must necessarily have carried off water and air from the watery and aerial parts of the Earth and must have an atmosphere."
By the early 20th century, the Laplacian model had fallen out of favor, prompting scientists to seek out new theories. However, it was not until the 1970s that the modern and most widely accepted variant of the nebular hypothesis - the solar nebular disk model (SNDM) - emerged. Credit for this goes to Soviet astronomer Victor Safronov and his book Evolution of the protoplanetary cloud and formation of the Earth and the planets (1972). In this book, almost all major problems of the planetary formation process were formulated and many were solved.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/1/1e/Artist%E2%80%99s_impression_of_the_disc_and_gas_streams_around_HD_142527_%28Animation%29.ogg/Artist%E2%80%99s_impression_of_the_disc_and_gas_streams_around_HD_142527_%28Animation%29.ogg.480p.webm



For example, the SNDM model has been successful in explaining the appearance of accretion discs around young stellar objects. Various simulations have also demonstrated that the accretion of material in these discs leads to the formation of a few Earth-sized bodies. Thus the origin of terrestrial planets is now considered to be an almost solved problem.



While originally applied only to the Solar System, the SNDM was subsequently thought by theorists to be at work throughout the Universe, and has been used to explain the formation of many of the exoplanets that have been discovered throughout our galaxy.



Problems:

Although the nebular theory is widely accepted, there are still problems with it that astronomers have not been able to resolve. For example, there is the problem of tilted axes. According to the nebular theory, all planets around a star should be tilted the same way relative to the ecliptic. But as we have learned, the inner planets and outer planets have radically different axial tilts.



Whereas the inner planets range from almost 0 degree tilt, others (like Earth and Mars) are tilted significantly (23.4° and 25°, respectively), outer planets have tilts that range from Jupiter's minor tilt of 3.13°, to Saturn and Neptune's more pronounced tilts (26.73° and 28.32°), to Uranus' extreme tilt of 97.77°, in which its poles are consistently facing towards the Sun.







Also, the study of extrasolar planets have allowed scientists to notice irregularities that cast doubt on the nebular hypothesis. Some of these irregularities have to do with the existence of "hot Jupiters" that orbit closely to their stars with periods of just a few days. Astronomers have adjusted the nebular hypothesis to account for some of these problems, but have yet to address all outlying questions.



Alas, it seems that it questions that have to do with origins that are the toughest to answer. Just when we think we have a satisfactory explanation, there remain those troublesome issues it just can't account for. However, between our current models of star and planet formation, and the birth of our Universe, we have come a long way. As we learn more about neighboring star systems and explore more of the cosmos, our models are likely to mature further.



We have written many articles about the Solar System here at Universe Today. Here's The Solar System, Did our Solar System Start with a Little Bang?, and What was Here Before the Solar System?



For more information, be sure to check out the origin of the Solar System and how the Sun and planets formed.



Astronomy Cast also has an episode on the subject - Episode 12: Where do Baby Stars Come From?

The post How Was the Solar System Formed? appeared first on Universe Today.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

PLANETS POSTAGE: US Postal Service Issues New Solar System, Pluto Stamps

Planets Postage: US Postal Service Issues New Solar System, Pluto Stamps:

Planets Postage: US Postal Service Issues New Solar System, Pluto Stamps
The United States Postal Service's new "Views of Our Planets" and "Pluto—Explored!" stamps are being issued May 31, 2016.

Credit: USPS via collectSPACE.com


You can now embark on a tour of our solar system — from the innermost planet Mercury to the dwarf planet Pluto — just by visiting your local United States Post Office.

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is issuing Tuesday (May 31) two sets of postage stamps depicting the eight planets that circle the Sun and the icy world that orbits out beyond them.

"The 'Views of Our Planets' and 'Pluto—Explored!' stamps begin their own journeys today — on letters and packages to millions of homes and businesses throughout America," David Williams, the Postal Service's chief operating officer and executive vice president, stated in a release. "We trust they'll find a home in your own collections, too." [Photos: Space Age Postage Stamps Through History]

A first-day-of-issue ceremony for the new stamps took place Tuesday morning as part of the World Stamp Show at the Jacob K Javits Convention Center in New York. Joining Williams to celebrate the new releases were NASA's chief scientist Ellen Stofan, NASA's director of planetary science Jim Green and Alan Stern, the principal investigator for the New Horizons mission to Pluto.

"The unveiling of these breathtaking new images of Pluto and our planets [is] an exciting day for NASA and for all who love space exploration," stated Green. "With the 2015 Pluto flyby, we've completed the initial reconnaissance of the solar system. We're grateful to the U.S. Postal Service for commemorating this historic achievement."

USPS "Views of Our Planets" stamps depict Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
USPS "Views of Our Planets" stamps depict Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

Credit: USPS


Planets, but not as you know them

Much has changed since the last time that the U.S. issued stamps depicting the planets.

Prior to Tuesday's release, the most recent set was issued in October 1991, when the Hubble Space Telescope was a year old in Earth orbit and had yet to have its flawed vision corrected. Probes had yet to begin circling Mercury, Jupiter or Saturn, and no mission had reached Pluto, which was still counted among the planets.

"The last time the [solar system stamps] were done, they were illustrated," Bill Gicker, art director for the USPS, told collectSPACE. "Looking through the more current images of the planets, I just thought, well, they are providing these amazing images, why do we not feature those on stamps? Why illustrate?"

The new "Views of Our Planets" set includes eight postage stamps, one each for Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. The "Forever"-denomination stamps feature images that were taken by NASA planetary missions and by the Hubble Space Telescope.

Not all of the planets' images, though, were captured in the visual spectrum, as the public is familiar seeing them.

"We tried to tell a story," said Gicker. "We want stamps to be educational, so in creating the sheet as we did, instead of just showing what everyone thinks they know of what a planet looks like — any one of our particular planets — we decided to focus on different views taken through scientific means to gain further understanding."

For example, the colorful image of Mercury, based on data from the MESSENGER probe, features a false color view that notes chemical, mineralogical and physical differences in the otherwise grey rocks on its surface. Similarly, Jupiter is shown as pictured by the Hubble Telescope in the near-infrared, making the usually red, orange and yellow-tinted gas giant appear to be pastel colored.

"That became the mission we had in creating the stamps, to show the different ways the planets are being looked at through various technologies," Gicker said.

Text on the reverse of the stamp panes detail the source of each image and what was learned by the way in which the planets were observed.

The title of the "Pluto—Explored!" stamps is a subtle nod to a 1991 USPS stamp that labeled Pluto "Not Yet Explored."
The title of the "Pluto—Explored!" stamps is a subtle nod to a 1991 USPS stamp that labeled Pluto "Not Yet Explored."

Credit: USPS


Including Pluto, without taking sides

Pluto, and the NASA mission that first encountered it, gets its own set of two stamps. The separate issue allowed the USPS to avoid entering the debate over whether Pluto is a planet or not.

"We, as the Postal Service, did not want to enter into the debate or take sides, but with the happenstance the way it was — with New Horizons arriving at Pluto, it gave us the perfect opportunity to be able to issue Pluto with the rest of the planets," said Gicker. "We were working very hard not to enter into the fray."

Like the "Views of Our Planets" stamps, one of the "Pluto—Explored!" stamps depicts the dwarf planet using data returned by the New Horizons spacecraft. A composite of four images from the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI), combined with color data from the Ralph imaging instrument, the stamp shows the now-iconic, heart-shaped feature on Pluto's surface.

The second issue in the set features a NASA illustration of the New Horizons probe itself.

The set's title, "Pluto—Explored!" is meant as a subtle nod to the previous 1991 solar system stamps, which included a note that Pluto had yet to be visited. An example of the "Not Yet Explored" 29-cent stamp was carried aboard New Horizons to Pluto.

"We wanted to cause that little smile of acknowledgement, but this was a new set," Gicker explained. "We wanted to try it fully as a new set, with the title nod to the old stamp. We thought about reproducing the old stamp with the new title, but we thought with these images coming back, that was the most interesting thing, this time we're really seeing [Pluto] in any kind of detail."

"These new stamps recognize that Pluto has indeed been explored by the New Horizons spacecraft," said Stern in a statement, "and has been revealed to be a complex and fascinating world.”

See collectSPACE for instructions on how to request first-day-of-issue postmarks for the new “Views of Our Planets” and “Pluto—Explored!” USPS stamps.


ALIENS - Alien Minds Part II: Do Aliens Think Big Brains are Sexy Too?

Alien Minds Part II: Do Aliens Think Big Brains are Sexy Too?:



peahen and peacock


“Nothing in biology makes sense”, wrote the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, “except in the light of evolution”. If we want to assess whether it is likely that technological civilizations have evolved on alien planets or moons, and what they might be like, the theory of evolution is our best guide. On May 18, 2016 the newly founded METI (Messaging to ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) International hosted a workshop entitled 'The Intelligence of SETI: Cognition and Communication in Extraterrestrial Intelligence’. The workshop was held in San Juan, Puerto Rico on the first day of the National Space Society’s International Space Development Conference. It included nine talks by scientists and scholars in evolutionary biology, psychology, cognitive science, and linguistics.



In the first instalment of this series, we saw that intelligence, of various sorts, is widespread across the animal kingdom. Workshop presenter Anna Dornhaus, who studies collective decision-making in insects as an associate professor at the University of Arizona, showed that even insects, with their diminutive brains, exhibit a surprising cognitive sophistication. Intelligence, of various sorts, is a likely and probable evolutionary product.



Animals evolve the cognitive abilities that they need to meet the demands of their own particular environments and lifestyles. Sophisticated brains and cognition have evolved many times on Earth, in many separate evolutionary lineages. But, of the millions of evolutionary lineages that have arisen on Earth in the 600 million years since complex life appeared, only one, that which led to human beings, produced the peculiar combination of cognitive traits that led to a technological civilization. What this tells us is that technological civilization is not the inevitable product of a long term evolutionary trend, it is rather the quirky and contingent product of particular circumstances. But what might those circumstances have been, and just how special and improbable were they?







Workshop presenter Geoffrey Miller is an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico. Miller thinks he has an answer to the question of what the special circumstances that produced human evolution were. Our protohuman ancestors inhabited the African savanna. But so do many other mammals that don’t need enormous brains to survive there. The evolutionary forces driving the production of our large brains, Miller surmises, can’t be due to the challenges of survival. He thinks instead that human evolution was guided by an intelligence. But Miller is no creationist, nor does he have the alien monolith from the 1960's science fiction classic 2001: A Space Odyssey in mind. Miller’s guiding intelligence is the intelligence that our ancestors themselves used when they selected their mates.



Miller’s theory harkens back to the ideas of the founder of modern evolutionary theory, the nineteenth century British naturalist Charles Darwin. Darwin proposed that evolution works through a process of natural selection. Animal offspring vary one from another, and are produced in too great of numbers for all of them to survive. Some starve, some are eaten by predators, others fall prey to the numerous other hazards of the natural world. A few survive to produce offspring, thereby passing on the traits that allowed them to survive. Down the generations, traits that aided survival become more elaborate and useful and traits that did not, vanished.



But Darwin was troubled by a serious problem with his theory. He knew that many animals have prominent traits that don’t seem to contribute to their survival, and are even counterproductive to it. The bright colors of many insects, the colors, elaborate plumage, and songs of birds, the huge antlers of elk, were all prominent and costly traits that couldn’t be explained by his theory of natural selection. Peacocks, with their elaborate tail feathers were everywhere in English gardens, and came to torment him.



At last, Darwin found the solution. To produce offspring, an animal must do more than just survive, it must find a partner to mate with. All the traits which worried Darwin could be explained if they served to make their bearers sexier and more beautiful to prospective mates than other competing members of their own gender. If peahens like elaborate plumage, then in each generation, they will choose to mate with the males with the most elaborate tail feathers, and reject the rest. Through the competition for mates, peacock tails will become more and more elaborate down the generations. Darwin called his new theory sexual selection.



Many subsequent evolutionary biologists regarded sexual selection as of limited importance, and lumped it in with natural selection, which was said to favor traits conducive to survival and reproductive success. However, in recent decades evolutionary biologists have come to view sexual selection in a much more favorable light. Geoffrey Miller proposed that the human brain evolved through sexual selection. Human beings, he supposes, are sapiosexual; that is, they are sexually attracted by intelligence and its products. The preference for selecting intelligent mates produced greater intelligence, which in turn allowed our ancestors to become more discerning in selecting more intelligent mates, producing a kind of amplifying feedback loop, and an explosion of intelligence.



On this account, language, music, dancing, humor, art, literature, and perhaps even morality and ethics exist because those who were good at them were deemed sexier, or more trustworthy and reliable, and were thus more successful in securing mates than those who weren’t. The elaborate human brain is like the elaborate peacock’s tail. It exists for wooing mates and not for survival. There are some important ways in which protohumans were different from peafowl. Both males and females are choosy and both have large brains. Protohumans, unlike peafowl, probably formed monogamous pair bonds. Miller’s theory has complexities that space won’t permit us to explore here. To show that his theory can work, Miller needed to develop a computer model.







If Miller is right, then just how probable is the evolution of a technological civilization, and how likely is it that we will find them elsewhere in the galaxy? Miller thinks that if complex life exists on other planets or moons, it is likely to evolve reproduction through sex, just as has happened here on Earth. For complex organisms that depend on a large and complicated body of genetic information, most mutations will be neutral or harmful. In sexual reproduction half the genes of one’s offspring come from each parent. Without this mixing of genes from other individuals, asexual lineages are likely to falter and go extinct due to an accumulation of harmful mutations. Unless sexually reproducing creatures choose their mates purely at random, sexual selection is an inevitability. So, the basic conditions for runaway sexual selection to produce a brain suited to language and technology probably exists on other worlds with complex life.



One problem, though, that Anna Dornhaus pointed out, is that in sexual selection, the trait that gets exaggerated is essentially arbitrary. There are many bird species with elaborate plumage, but none exactly like the peacock. There are many species where brains and cognitive traits matter for mating success, like the singing ability of nightingales and many other birds, or gibbons, or whales. Male bower birds build complicated structures, called bowers, out of found items, like sticks and leaves and stones and shells, to attract a female. Chimpanzees engage in complex power struggles that involve negotiation, grooming, and fighting their way to the top.



But despite the selective success of cognition and braininess in many species, our specific human sort of intelligence, with language and technology, has happened only once on Earth, and therefore might be rare in the universe. If our ancestors had found big noses rather than big brains sexy, then we might now have enormous noses rather than enormous radio telescopes capable of signaling to other worlds.



Miller is more optimistic. “It’s a rare accident” he writes, in the sense that mate preferences only rarely turn ‘sapiosexual’, focused so heavily on conspicuous displays of general intelligence... On the other hand, I think it's likely that in any biosphere, sexual selection would eventually stumble into sapiosexual mate preferences, and then you'd get human-level intelligence and language of some sort. It might only arise in 1 out of every 100 million species though,...I suspect that in any biosphere with sexually reproducing complex organisms and a wide variety of species, you'd quite likely get at least one lineage stumbling into the sapiosexual niche within a billion years”.



A planet or moon is currently deemed potentially habitable if it orbits its parent star within the right distance range for liquid water to exist on its surface. This distance range is called the habitable zone. Since stars evolve with time, the duration of habitability is limited. Such matters can be explored through climate modeling, informed by what we know of the climates of Earth and other worlds within our solar system, and about the evolution of stars.



Current thinking is that Earth’s total duration of habitability is 6.3 to 7.8 billion years, and that our world may remain habitable for another 1.75 billion years. Since complex life has already existed on Earth for 600 million years, this seems a generous amount of time for complex life on a similar planet to stumble upon Miller’s sapiosexual niche. Stars of smaller mass than the sun are stable on longer timescales, some perhaps capable of sustaining worlds with liquid water for a hundred billion years. If Miller’s estimates are reasonable, then there may be worlds enough and time for an abundance of sapiosexual alien civilizations in our galaxy.



A central message of the METI Institute workshop is that, animals evolve whatever sort of intelligence is necessary for them to survive and reproduce under the circumstances in which they find themselves. Human-style intelligence, with language and technology, is a peculiar quirk of particular and improbable evolutionary circumstances. But we don’t know just how improbable. Given the vastness of time and number of worlds potentially available for the roll of the evolutionary dice, alien civilizations might be reasonably abundant, or they might be once-in-a-billion galaxies rare. We just don’t know. Better knowledge of the evolution of life and intelligence here on Earth might allow us to improve our estimates.



If alien civilizations do exist, what can life on Earth tell us about what their minds and senses are likely to be like? Are they, like us, visually oriented creatures, or might they rely on other senses? Can we expect that their minds might be similar enough to ours to make meaningful communication possible? These intriguing questions will be the subject of the third and final installment of this series.



For further reading:



Hooper, P. L. (2008) Mutual mate choice can drive costly signalling even under perfect monogamy. Adaptive Behavior, 16: p. 53-70.



Marris, E. (2013) Earth's days are numbered. Nature News.



Miller, G. F. (2000) The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature. Random House, New York.



Miller, G. F. (2007) Sexual selection for moral virtues, The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(2): p. 97-125.



Patton, P. E. (2016) Alien Minds I: Are Extraterrestrial Civilizations Likely to Evolve? Universe Today.



P. Patton (2014) Communicating across the cosmos, Part 1: Shouting into the darkness, Part 2: Petabytes from the Stars, Part 3: Bridging the Vast Gulf, Part 4: Quest for a Rosetta Stone, Universe Today.



Rushby, A. J., Claire, M. W., Osborn, H., Watson, A. J. (2013) Habitable zone lifetimes of exoplanets around main sequence stars. Astrobiology, 13(9), p. 833-849.



Yirka, B. (2016) Yeast study offers evidence of the superiority of sexual reproduction versus cloning in speed of adaptation. Phys.org.

The post Alien Minds Part II: Do Aliens Think Big Brains are Sexy Too? appeared first on Universe Today.

Monday, May 30, 2016

UFOS WILL APPEAR ? - Mars At Closest Point To Earth in 11 Years Today

Mars At Closest Point To Earth in 11 Years Today:



Mars in all its red-hued glory. Image: NASA, ESA, the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA), J. Bell (ASU), and M. Wolff (Space Science Institute)


If you have a telescope, (What?! You don't have one?) you're in for a visual treat tonight. Mars will be at its closest point to Earth in 11 years today. This event is worth checking out, whether with a telescope, astronomy binoculars, or online.



While today is when Mars is at its closest, you actually have a couple weeks to check this out, as the distance between Mars and Earth gradually becomes greater and greater. Today, Mars is 76 million kilometers (47.2 million miles) away, but up until June 12th it will still be no further than 77 million kilometers (48 million miles) away.



The furthest Mars can be from Earth is 401 million kilometers (249 million miles), when the two planets are on the opposite side of the Sun from each other.



[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sfPjOtzLn4[/embed]



For most of us with backyard 'scopes, it's difficult to make out much detail. You can see Mars, and at the most you can make out a polar cap. But it's still fascinating knowing you're looking at another planet, one that was totally unknowable for most humans who preceded us. A planet that we have rovers on, and that we have several craft in orbit around.



If you don't have a scope, have no fear. There will be a flood of great astro-photos of Mars in the next few days. There are also options for live streaming feeds from powerful Earth-based telescopes.



The last time Mars was this close to Earth was 2005. A couple years before, the distance shrank to 55.7 million km (34.6 million miles.) That was the closest Mars and Earth have been in several thousand years. In 2018, the two planets will be nearly that close again.



This event is often called "opposition", but it's actually more correctly called "closest approach." Opposition occurs a couple weeks before closest approach, when Mars is directly opposite the Sun.







But whether you call it opposition, or closest approach, the event itself is significant for more than just looking at it. Missions to Mars are planned when the two planets are close to each other. This reduces mission times drastically.



Mars Express, the mission being conducted by the European Space Agency (ESA) was launched in 2003, when the two planets were as close to each other as they've been in thousands of years. All missions to Mars can't be so lucky, but they all strive to take advantage of the orbital cycles of the two planets, by nailing launch dates that work in our favour.



As for finding Mars in the night sky, it's not that difficult. If you have clear skies where you are, Mars will appear as a bright, fire-yellow star.

"Just look southeast after the end of twilight, and you can't miss it," says Alan MacRobert, a senior editor of Sky & Telescope magazine, in a statement. "Mars looks almost scary now, compared to how it normally looks in the sky."







Although Mars is the closest thing in the sky to Earth right now, other than the Moon, it isn't the brightest thing in the night sky. That honour is reserved for Jupiter, even though it's ten times further away. Jupiter is twenty times larger in diameter than Mars, so it reflects much more sunlight and appears much brighter. (Obviously, everything in the night sky pales in comparison to the Moon.)



The reason for such a variation in distances between the planets lies in their elliptical orbits around the Sun. There's a great video showing how their orbits change the distance between the two planets, here.



If you don't have a telescope, you can still check Mars out. Go to slooh.com to check out live feeds from a proper telescope.







The post Mars At Closest Point To Earth in 11 Years Today appeared first on Universe Today.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

NASA IMAGES - IC 5067 in the Pelican Nebula

IC 5067 in the Pelican Nebula:

Discover the cosmos! Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer.

2016 May 26


See Explanation. Clicking on the picture will download the highest resolution version available.


IC 5067 in the Pelican Nebula

Image Credit & Copyright: Data - Subaru Telescope (NAOJ), R. Colombari, Processing - Roberto Colombari


Explanation: The prominent ridge of emission featured in this sharp, colorful skyscape is cataloged as IC 5067. Part of a larger emission nebula with a distinctive shape, popularly called The Pelican Nebula, the ridge spans about 10 light-years following the curve of the cosmic pelican's head and neck. This false-color view also translates the pervasive glow of narrow emission lines from atoms in the nebula to a color palette made popular in Hubble Space Telescope images of star forming regions. Fantastic, dark shapes inhabiting the 1/2 degree wide field are clouds of cool gas and dust sculpted by the winds and radiation from hot, massive stars. Close-ups of some of the sculpted clouds show clear signs of newly forming stars. The Pelican Nebula, itself cataloged as IC 5070, is about 2,000 light-years away. To find it, look northeast of bright star Deneb in the high flying constellation Cygnus.

Tomorrow's picture: Great Carina



< | Archive | Submissions | Search | Calendar | RSS | Education | About APOD | Discuss | >



Authors & editors: Robert Nemiroff (MTU) & Jerry Bonnell (UMCP)
NASA Official: Phillip Newman Specific rights apply.
NASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices
A service of: ASD at NASA / GSFC
& Michigan Tech. U.