ASTR 121 (O'Connell) Study Guide
1. INTRODUCTION: SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
AND THE SCALE OF THE UNIVERSE
The European Southern Observatory Very
Large Telescope, Chile.
This introductory lecture places astronomy in the broader context of
science. It discusses the nature of science, how science is
distinguished from other modes of thought, the difference between
science and technology, and some of the main results of science.
Astronomy has had a strong influence on other sciences and defines the
limits of the scientific universe. We will illustrate some of the
mind-boggling spatial and temporal scales astronomical research has
revealed in the cosmos.
A. WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Definition: systematic understanding of empirical
natural phenomena.
"Empirical" = experienced or observed
Science is both a body of knowledge and a way of thinking.
Scientific values &
methods are relatively new in human history; started ca. 1500.
Characteristics:
- Logical; rational
- Clear, orderly; choose simplest alternative
- Cumulative development
New interpretations are required to be consistent with all established
facts.
This is a challenging requirement!
Key feature:
- Science is based on an empirical criterion
of truth: ideas are tested by objective experiment/observation in
the real world.
- Evaluation of evidence must be rigorous, objective, and public.
- Any valid scientific proposition is falsifiable by
empirical tests. I.e. it is well enough defined that you can specify
in advance those outcomes that would show the idea to be wrong.
- The results of tests must
be repeatable.
- Confidence in ideas grows with the number of independent
tests or validations. "Independence" implies verification not only
by different people but also by different lines of evidence or methods
of inquiry.
The scientific method in practice:
The "Scientific Method" was not invented or prescribed wholesale by
some individual or group. Rather, it emerged over a period of several
centuries as the set of analytical techniques that proved most
successful in the struggle to understand nature.
The usual formalized statement of "The Scientific Method"
(e.g. Hypothesis ===> Prediction ===> Experiment ===> Interpretation
===> Repeat) is misleading.
Scientists frequently simply
explore the characteristics of new phenomena, without any
particular intent to distinguish between interpretations but with the
hope that they might prove interesting or important.
A number of sciences, including astronomy, deal with phenomena that
cannot be manipulated by humans. Experiments are impossible in
these cases. These sciences must rely instead on passive
observations.
(For astronomy, the only exception is that
we can, with difficulty, sample and experiment with the surfaces and
atmospheres of some of the other bodies in the solar system.)
The characteristics of scientific thinking should sound familiar to
you: this is really nothing more than slightly refined, standardized,
and tough-minded "common sense".
B. ALTERNATIVE MODES OF THOUGHT
Scientific thinking has become so important because
it is tremendously successful in understanding the natural world.
It is worthwhile distinguishing science from other modes of
thinking.
- Idealism (e.g. Greek philosophy, Plato)
Deductions about the physical world are made
from abstract, a priori postulates; it is assumed that empirical
evidence is corrupted.
Fine for mathematics, badly flawed for real world.
- Revelation (religion)
Explanations are sought by appeal to a spiritual realm beyond the
natural world ("super"-natural).
Prior to the development of science, physical phenomena were usually
interpreted as the product of deliberate and purposeful manipulation
by supernatural agencies, with motives largely beyond human
understanding. Knowledge of these agencies was possible only through
intentional revelation by them.
By contrast, science deals only with the natural world.
It seeks explanations of natural phenomena in terms of other natural
phenomena.
Supernatural explanations are not acceptable to scientists because
there is no way to test them.
Objective empirical tests are impossible
for the supernatural world. Science cannot predict
supernatural behavior or intervention in the natural world since the
laws of nature don't apply.
However, science could in principle detect
supernatural intervention in the natural world a posteriori
(after the fact). Frequent intervention would produce an
arbitrary and largely unintelligible world. The fact that
discontinuities in natural law have never been verified shows that
direct intervention is rare at current levels of detection.
Revelation produces a hierarchy of privilege. Access to the truth, and
the corresponding power, is normally accorded only to a few (priests,
prophets, gurus). Non-democratic.
- Authority
Ideas are tested by appeal to the pronouncements of an individual or
small group. These cannot be questioned or superseded.
The most
familiar, and dangerous, variety of authoritative "truth" is found in
dictatorships. But authority is also the basis of the case law system
("precedent") in American jurisprudence.
Despite the public impression, science is not based on
authority. Instead, it operates by consensus. Any scientist
is entitled to question and retest any idea at any time and attempt to
convince others to change their minds. Science is democratic.
Scientific "authorities" are respected not because of
who they are but instead because of what they say.
Their ideas are continuously subjected to new tests. The best idea
prevails.
Young scientists often aspire to overthrow "authorities" like
Einstein; they almost always fail because their ideas are
not as good.
- Pseudo-science
Examples: astrology, extra-sensory perception (ESP), psychic forecasts,
telekinesis, UFO abductions, cold fusion
Pseudo-scientific investigations sometimes seem scientific, but
they fail to meet the basic criteria listed above.
The evidence is always inadequate
It is not simply that there is no good scientific explanation for
pseudo-scientific phenomena. In most cases, the phenomena themselves
have not been demonstrated to exist.
For instance, we know that penicillin kills certain types
of dangerous bacteria. But no one has ever convincingly been shown to
be able to read someone else's mind.
At any time, there are thousands of well-documented phenomena that
science does not properly understand. These are what active scientists
devote their careers to studying. If credible evidence emerges
for any of the marginal "pseudo" areas, they will then receive
mainstream scientific attention.
Hallmarks: uncritical acceptance of poorly documented phenomena; lack
of experiments or inadequate experimental controls; inexperienced
observers; non-repeatability; often self-deception; sometimes
deliberate fraud. Almost always: lack of consistency with
established principles or facts (e.g. foreseeing the future
contradicts the theory of special relativity).
Most pseudo-science is harmless, except for the sloppy thinking and
miseducation it encourages. But some pseudo-science poses tangible
threats to you & society. For example:
Fraudulent or ineffective
"alternative" health-care (such as homeopathy, in which the active
therapeutic ingredients are diluted to the point where not a single
molecule remains).
False criminal prosecutions (murder, child
abuse, etc.) based on erroneous psychotherapy (e.g. "suppressed"
memories "recovered" by hypnosis).
C. SKEPTICISM
"Cultivated skepticism" is a cornerstone of science.
All good scientists are skeptics. This means that they maintain an
attitude of doubt or of suspended judgement about
scientific ideas.
Scientists insist on the best possible evidence in
support of new ideas.
The adjective that best describes the scientific approach to
evidence is "relentless".
Accepted ideas, no matter how well established, are constantly
tested against new evidence, sifted for quality. All
preconceptions are subject to scrutiny. History shows that truth only
emerges through this kind of skeptical "scrubbing" of ideas and
evidence. The ideas that survive this process are very robust.
Competition over ideas, often intense, is a hallmark of science in
practice. There are strong incentives for scientists to discover new
phenomena or interpretations that countervail the accepted wisdom.
That is how young people make careers in science.
However, scientific doubt isn't frivolous; it must be based on the
quality of the empirical evidence. Good scientists are
scrupulous in their treatment (positive or negative) of the evidence;
their reputations suffer otherwise.
Skepticism is not an established element in many other modes of
human thinking. Most people are uncomfortable with skepticism and
instead see virtue in conviction, certainty, and strong beliefs. As
Bertrand Russell remarked, this may be the
"fundamental cause of trouble in the world today."
Errors occur in science, as in any human endeavor; but because of
skepticism, there is a strong self-correcting mechanism
operating in science.
"He believed in the primacy of doubt, not as
a blemish upon our ability to know but as the essence of
knowing."
---- J. Gleick, writing about
physicist Richard Feynman.
D. SCIENCE vs. TECHNOLOGY
Science and technology are symbiotic but distinct
- Science: Attempt to understand universe, build
conceptual framework.
Adjectives used: "unapplied," "pure" or "basic"
Examples: principles of gravitation, electromagnetism, biochemistry,
astronomy
- Technology: Application of basic concepts to
societal needs.
Examples: structural engineering, electrical generators, weapons,
pharmacology.
All technology has a societal motivation, whether for good or ill, but
the main motivation for "basic" science is simply curiosity and the
desire to understand.
E. RESULTS OF SCIENCE
Basic result of science
Nature is understandable and operates
according to a small set of universal principles, or "laws"
Some other key results
Laws are the same everywhere in the observed universe
All matter, including living systems, is organized hierarchically from
a smaller set of subunits
The structure of molecules & atoms is determined by electromagnetic force
The Sun is a star
The Earth is a planet
Genetic information is transmitted by DNA molecules
Most communicable diseases are caused by microorganisms
The universe is very ancient, and its structure and contents have changed
systematically with time
Precursors
Very few of the important results of science had recognizable
precedents in earlier modes of thought (prior to 1500 AD).
The main exceptions are Greek physics and astronomy, e.g.
the models of the solar system by Ptolemy, ca. 130 AD, or the atomic
theory of Democritus, ca. 420 BC. The Greeks made great progress.
However, they disdained empirical testing of scientific ideas, which
circumscribed their ultimate accomplishments. See Study Guide 6.
How well determined are scientific results?
Some scientific results are known with effective certainty
(e.g. Earth is a planet; only one Sun in the solar system).
But scientific ideas are
mostly approximations to the truth. They systematically
improve by discarding older, less successful interpretations. But they
are usually not claimed to be absolute.
You can
picture the progress of science as an inward spiral toward the truth.
A simple practical measure of the validity of scientific
ideas: If our scientific understanding of nature was seriously
flawed, then most of our technology would simply not work. The
validity of ideas like Newton's laws of motion or Maxwell's
description of electromagnetism is tested continuously in every
assembly line, automobile, and DVD player in the world.
Influence on society:
As a new mode of thinking about the natural world, science succeeded
brilliantly. It demonstrated that humans can solve many problems
which at first seemed intractable: e.g. questions like "what causes
bubonic plague?" or "what are the stars?"
Success in science has been a great source of optimism
in human cultures. This was a major wellspring for the Enlightenment
and the political philosophies that culminated in the founding of
Western democracy.
Science provides a demonstrably reliable and powerful
understanding of the physical & biological world. Over the past two
centuries it has transformed human societies. It is now the basis of
most of our technology, our wealth, and our collective and individual
well-being. The impact of science on our society is discussed further
in Study Guide 9.
The Moon and Venus at dusk
F. ASTRONOMY AS A SCIENCE
Astronomy is the study of the physical universe beyond the Earth's
atmosphere.
It is the oldest science, nearly universally practiced in literate &
pre-literate societies, and it
has been a major stimulus to other scientific fields from
Greek times to modern physics
Relevance to society:
- Astronomy investigates ultimate origins (an adjunct or alternative to religion)
- Astronomy provides our basic global perspective of time & space, i.e. a
cosmic context
- Astronomy was fundamental to the development of
scientific thinking and the formulation of the first generalized
physical laws (Newton).
- Study of the other planets and our cosmic environment is essential to
assessing the long-term viability of Earth's biosphere.
History of societal influence:
- All societies: practical time- and calendar-keeping, navigation
- 5000 BC - 1609 AD: aware of solar system (planets, sun)
- 16th-17th centuries: astronomy leads in
demolishment of medieval thinking
- 1609: newly-invented telescope reveals vast stellar system beyond planets
- Late 1600's: astronomy leads Newton to his laws of motion, which
initiate the "scientific revolution" and modern technology
- 19th century: speculation about extraterrestrial life
- 20th century: recognition of galaxies ("island universes"); expanding,
evolving universe; Big Bang; extraterrestrial cause of mass
biological extinctions; extra-solar planets
G. ASTRONOMICAL DISTANCES AND AGES
Astronomical time- and distance-scales are tremendously larger
than the "common sense" scales we encounter in everyday life.
Humans directly experience only a very small range of the ages,
distances, masses, densities, velocities, and energy releases that
prevail in the universe around us.
Unfortunately, this means that astronomical scales (not to mention atomic
or molecular scales) are completely
non-intuitive.
It is important for astronomers to develop a good cosmic
perspective. But it is difficult for anyone to visualize the
scales involved. Because the cosmic range is so enormous, scientists
make regular use of scientific mathematical notation ("powers of
ten"). For a review of this notation, see Supplement I (PDF file).
Example astronomical scale models
Simple scale models can provide a rough, if never completely adequate,
impression of cosmic scales:
- Example of the contrast between human perceptions and physical
reality: the Earth's atmosphere. It seems enormous and
all-encompassing, but it represents only a tiny fraction of the
Earth's diameter; see this image.
Can you propose a scale model for this?
- A sample cosmic time scale:
- The age of the Sun is 5 billion years. Use the letters in our
textbook to represent this span of time. How many
years per letter?
We discussed this in the introductory lecture, and we determined
that there would be 2500 years per letter if the entire textbook
represented the age of the Sun. All of recorded human history would
fit within the first three letters of the text!
The Earth is only about 10% younger than the Sun, so our scale model
graphically illustrates the vast span of time over which the surface,
atmosphere, and biosphere of our planet have been shaped into their
present form.
- The "dripping faucet effect": the very long time scales that
characterize planetary evolution mean that small but persistent
changes can eventually have major consequences. We will
see many examples of these (e.g. polar precession, continental drift).
- A healthy, fruit-based cosmic distance scale model:
- Use an orange to represent the Sun.
In this model, the Earth to Sun distance (defined to be one
"Astronomical Unit") is 25 ft.
[Useful mnemonic: Earth diam : Sun diam : Astron Unit = 1:100:10,000]
- What is the scale distance to the next nearest star (Alpha
Centauri) in this model?
An additional interesting piece of information that might help
you think about this question is that the Sun is about 10 billion times
brighter than the brightest stars as seen from Earth.
Reading for this lecture:
Seeds textbook: Ch 1 and the "Windows on Science Boxes 2.1-2.5" in Ch 2.
Study Guide 1
Optional reading: Alan Cromer: Uncommon Sense; Bertrand Russell:
A History of Western Philosophy; Carl Sagan: The Demon Haunted
World
Reading for next lecture:
Seeds textbook: Ch 1
Study Guide 2
Supplement I (PDF file) Skim and then refer to
this later as needed.
Optional: Cosmic History: A
Brief Narrative
Optional: browse the material on the structure &
evolution of the universe in the Seeds textbook Ch
16 and 18
Web Links:
Last modified
January 2008 by rwo
Text copyright © 1998-2008 Robert W. O'Connell. All
rights reserved. Twilight image of Moon and Venus over Mt. Shasta by
Jane English. M31 image by A. Jager. These notes are intended for
the private, noncommercial use of students enrolled in Astronomy 121
at the University of Virginia.