QQC: Bryson Chapters 5 & 6

Quote: See left

Question: The question is, what sophisticated dating techniques do we have today (besides the leather jacket and sports car) that allow us to more accurately measure the dates beyond 200 million years? How much more of an idea do we have today of these ages when all of our modern conclusions are based on observational data (and, by the way, how do you observe 65 million years?)?

Comment: This is an interesting quote, considering that, for the most part, our dating techniques are based largely on radiometric dating, which is limited by our assumptions about the previous nature of the earth, and how it was formed. We assume certain factors and constants, based on what little observational data we have of 4.5 billion years ago. While after assuming the constants, the rest is pure and very certain math, there are assumptions made about the current status of the Earth, and whether of not it was necessary for these elements to be present at or during the construction phase of the solar system. To be more precise, we are assuming, based on our observational data, that not only does it take 4.5 billion years for U-238 (uranium) to decay into Pb-206 (lead), but that, based on what else we find in our samples (alpha particles, etc.), there had to be a specific amount of uranium present in the earth at formation time for the information to be correct. Most rocks on earth started out with (relatively) lots of uranium, and now rocks that have lead and helium and a little itty bit of uranium left in them must have had a certain amount of only uranium at the beginning of their decay cycle, which would have began with the formation of the solar system and earth. But what stops the uranium from beginning its decay before the formation of the solar system, since the solar system did not create the uranium? (Usually Stars, not planetary nebulae accretion disks, create new molecules via gravity and radiation) And who's to say that the lead and helium weren't already in the rock when the earth was formed, or that the rock didn't coalesce and include little bits of hydrogen and helium in its formation, considering that there was enough helium and hydrogen around to make a star that could burn for over 10 billion+ years (almost the accepted age of the universe, which is 13.7 bil.)? We might want to consider just what exactly the accurate as described in reference to these dating methods is based upon (and remember, the math itself is good).

QQC: Bryson; The Measure of Things

My QQCs seem to keep getting shorter and shorter...

Quote: See Right (for once)

Question: It is incredible to think of the discoveries that Cavendish made without feeling the need to tell anyone about them. I wonder if he made any other discoveries that no one still knows about... Also, how much are things on Earth affected by the Sun's gravity, considering that it holds everything in place up to over one light-year (5.87 trillion miles) away? Doesn't it have a slight affect on us on earth, or does the distance factor so exceed it's gravity that Earth is infinitely more attractive

Comment: I think that it's amazing that he made discoveries that, for the rest of the world, weren't made until the 19th century. I thought that it was interesting to note that when he measured the gravitational constant, that his value of 6 sextillion tonnes (that's a six followed by 21 zeros) for the weight (mass) of the earth has not really been improved upon, it was so accurate. That Mitchell, though, could have even thought of anything such as a machine to measure the gravitational constant is absolutely incredible, considering the actual values that he was considering measuring (the constant is something like 6x10^-6 or so, incredibly small).

QQC: The Solar System & The Reverend Evan's Universe

Quote: See Left, Again.

Question: (Last time, I guess I did a QCQ, so this time it's a bona-fide QQC!) What is the purpose of figuring out how many advanced civilizations there are in the universe, if we will never be able to contact them, and theoretically they will never be able to contact us? and...

Since our solar system only occupies a minuscule amount of the actual space of the solar system, is dark matter detectable in the small mass of the solar system, or is it only detectable in the extremely (unimaginably) large masses of galaxies and galaxy clusters? Simply, is dark matter detectable close to home?

Comment: So, last time I set forth a few incongruities in the big bang theory. I also spent a long time to spell out what I was thinking, so that's probably why Dave didn't comment on my Blog. SO, aside from this lengthy and unnecessarily wordy and very unbecoming introductory clause, I shall try to be as concise as possible, and not talk your ear off about things that were probably not very well explained by my rantings, OK? Good; let's proceed.

I think that it is amazing to think about the size of the universe and the solar system. I hadn't realized how much of space is actually that, nor had I thought about the amount of time it would take for interstellar travel. It's incredible to think that it would take 25,000 years just to reach Proxima Centauri, which, incidentally, in nearby Alpha Centauri (really a binary system), but, again, the other two stars are so far away that Proxima Centauri orbits them about every million years, give or take half a million. So, even within a single star system the distances between relatively close stars is very far. I read that the Pleiades star cluster had a number of stars that were only a few light-weeks apart, very close for not being a traditional binary or triple or any sort of star system (besides a cluster). Then I thought, well how far is a few light-weeks? It turns out that 3 light-weeks (3 being a few) is 337.99 billion miles, or about 110 times the distance to Pluto. It takes 6 to 10 years to get to Pluto, so on average, a short (I'd say most of these stars are not just 3 light-weeks away) journey between really really really really close stars would take, oh, say about 700 years as a conservative measure (it's more like 1100 years if you do the math @ 35 000 mph). I'd say that space is probably the most accurate term that astronomers have yet come up with to describe our universe. But boy, what a big space we have (of course, we could cynically note that that's all we have, but, oh well...).

QQC on Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything Intro

Quote: See Left

Comment: I thought this reading, though well written and certainly very entertaining to read, was nonetheless absurd. I disagree entirely with the author's description of the creation of the universe, for personal and other reasons. I find, however, that indeed the preceding passage, which describes the incredibly small size of a proton, very valuable to understanding part of the reason why the Big Bang, as Bryson describes it here is not really possible. Because the Big Bang describes the creation of the laws of physics, it also puts forth the possibility of changing the very laws we have come to know as constant and immovable. Changing the laws of physics would pose an incredibly large problem to physicists and researchers. In fact, the idea that the Big Bang, within 1 minute, expanded the universe to perhaps a space larger than 4085 light-years across (which is incredibly large compared to us, but incredibly small compared to even our own Milky Way Galaxy, which has satellite galaxies that are bigger) certainly provides evidence for dark energy, the universal "repelling" force. But there is only one problem with the presence of dark energy. At the time the universe was "created" according to the big bang, there was absolutely nothing. No quarks, no leptons (like the familiar electron), no exotic particles, no atoms, no helium or hydrogen, in fact, there was nothing. So dark energy is not responsible for this initial expansion of the universe, because it did not exist for at least the entire first second, when an incredible amount of creation was occurring. Indeed, the nuclei of hydrogen and helium and lithium did not appear until three minutes (which, by the way, was after the anti-matter particles were destroyed in a gigantic destruction phase that extended for perhaps a minute). So what caused the universe to expand for even the first minute, let alone the first three minutes (which cosmologists say are the most crucial parts of the big bang)? Even in the first 380,000 years (far longer than man has been a Homo sapiens) whole atoms were just a dream, and the atomic nuclei (i.e. Proton and Neutron masses) floated around without electrons to emit radiation in a controlled fashion. This brief discussion then brings me to my next assignment part:

Question: Why is something that is so unprovable (don't even think about trying to prove it--they can't and that's their job. All that they're doing is compiling evidence) considered so fundamental to science and the world, especially when its concept is so incomprehensible? (For incomprehensible, can you imagine a singularity that exists not in nothing, but rather, is the existence? I mean, even my description of what it really is is confusing enough.)