Category Archives: lectures

Hadfield talks guitars and other space oddities

Chris Hadfield may not be quite the household name among astronauts that John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, or Buzz Aldrin are, but he tops them all in at least one category: Hadfield’s video version of the David Bowie tune “Space Oddity,” recorded on the International Space Station, has been viewed more than 19 million times on YouTube. That’s by far the most hits among his many made-from-space flicks and eclipses on-line hits on Moon-landing videos.

Hadfield made a stop in Seattle earlier this month for a talk before a large crowd at Town Hall Seattle, where he signed copies of his book An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth: What Going to Space Taught Me About Ingenuity, Determination, and Being Prepared for Anything.

Though YouTube didn’t exist during the Apollo era, Hadfield said he was nonetheless inspired by the space pioneers.

“I decided to be an astronaut when I was nine; that’s when Neil and Buzz walked on the Moon,” he said. This was especially challenging for a kid from Canada. “It wasn’t just hard, it was impossible. There was no Canadian astronaut program.”

He pursued the dream anyway, learning to fly airplanes as a teen, and picking up astronaut-type skills the best he could until, finally, the opportunity presented itself.

Hadfield at Town Hall Seattle

Astronaut Chris Hadfield spoke Nov. 12 at Town Hall Seattle. Photo: Greg Scheiderer.

Hadfield didn’t talk much about the book during his Seattle event, mostly limiting prepared remarks to an account of what it’s like to be launched into space. He said the first nine minutes bring the majority of the risk on any mission.

“You have seven million pounds of thrust and you are going… somewhere!” he said. “It feels like something crashed into your spaceship. There’s this big pulse of energy through the whole ship and then a big rumbling vibration. You can’t hear it, but oh, you can feel it, like a piston in the small of your back that pushes harder and harder.”

He said that on his first space flight he experienced an unexpected injury by the time they reached orbit.

“About this time I noticed my face hurt; my cheeks were all cramped up and I realized that I’d been smiling so broadly,” Hadfield recalled.

“I laughed at myself to think that I didn’t know how much fun I was having. Part of me was going ‘OK check the pressures, check this, call out the distances, all the ranges, black zones, all the rest of it,’ and part of me was going ‘WHEEEEEE!’”

Hadfield said that playing guitar in space is an interesting experience because of weightlessness.

“When you fret with your hands, the whole guitar just takes off!” he said. ”Eventually you learn how to stabilize it.”

In addition, he said that playing with a weightless arm throws you off.

“When you try to do something quick up and down the neck you miss,” Hadfield explained. “You have to re-learn how to fret properly.”

There’s a West Coast connection to Hadfield’s space musicianship. He has a special guitar made by Roscoe Wright of Wright Guitars in Eugene, Oregon.

“He makes this really weird guitar that is just the fret board,” Hadfield said. “The guitar pieces are actually like a coat hanger, so that it gives the shape of a guitar, it feels like a guitar against your body, but it folds up really tiny, a really clever design. I got him to cut the neck in half so it would fit into a shuttle locker. He built one special for me.”

It’s not the guitar used in the “Space Oddity” video, which is an ordinary acoustic instrument.

Hadfield also fielded questions about the past and the future of space exploration. He, like most astronauts I’ve heard speak, thinks that shutting down the space shuttle program was the right call, noting that shuttles flew for the better part of three decades.

“You probably don’t drive a 30 year old car to work every day, you sure don’t drive one to space every day,” Hadfield said.

“There’s only so much money in the NASA budget, and you can’t fly an expensive vehicle while building a new vehicle unless you get a big whack of money from somebody else, and there was no somebody else,” he explained. “I think we did it just right.”

“Everybody should celebrate the space shuttle,” he added. “It was the most capable vehicle we’ve ever built and it served us superbly. I was delighted to get a chance to fly it.”

As for the future, Hadfield feels the next logical step in humanity’s continuing drive to explore will be an international effort to return to the Moon.

“We need to learn how to go live there,” he said. “We will learn an awful lot by setting up permanent habitation on the Moon over the next–who knows? 30 years, couple generations. From there hopefully we’ll invent enough things that we can go even further.”


The End of Night

Paul Bogard laments the loss of the beauty of the stars and the night sky.

“Walking out of your door and seeing the Milky Way for ever was one of the most common human experiences, and now it’s become one of the most rare human experiences,” said Bogard, author of The End of Night: Searching for Natural Darkness in an Age of Artificial Light. “Estimates are now that eight of 10 kids born in the United States will never live where they can see the Milky Way” because of light pollution.

“There’s been a real switch and, I think, with great cost,” Bogard said during a talk this week at Town Hall Seattle.

Paul Bogard

Author Paul Bogard spoke about The End of Night at Town Hall Seattle on Oct. 8, 2013. Photo: Greg Scheiderer.

Bogard, an English professor at James Madison University, first got interested in the stars as a kid. He grew up in Minneapolis and his family had a lake cabin in Northern Minnesota, where he spent summer nights looking up.

“Year after year of seeing that night sky in the summer made a lasting impact on me,” he said.

Even more impressive was a post-college backpacking trip in the Atlas Mountains in Morocco, where he described a night sky so dark it was like a dream; the millions of stars looked like a snowstorm.

“I felt open to everything, as though I was made of clay and the world was imprinting upon me its breathtaking beauty,” Bogard read from the book. “Standing nearly naked under that Moroccan sky, skin against the air, the dark, the stars, the night pressed its impression and my life-long connection was sealed.”

Much of The End of Night relates Bogard’s experiences visiting the brightest and the darkest places we can get to, sometimes within hours of each other, such as the time he drove from the bright lights of Las Vegas to the pitch dark of Great Basin National Park in Eastern Nevada.

During the talk Bogard shared the familiar photo of the Earth at night, and observed that it’s a beautiful image, but that he doesn’t like what it depicts.

“What we’re seeing here is waste,” he said. “Nearly all of the light we see here is shining up in to the sky, it’s wasted, it’s not doing anybody any good.”

The End of Night

While the loss of the splendor of the night sky is terrible, Bogard noted that the other effects of light pollution may be more compelling reasons to do something, from a public policy standpoint. Poor lighting can actually reduce safety and security, and it harms wildlife. He also said there’s growing evidence of light pollution’s health effects on humans. Our sleep is disrupted and our circadian rhythms confused, and bright nights impede our production of melatonin, which could lead to breast and prostate cancer. In fact, Bogard noted that the World Health Organization now considers working the night shift to be a possible carcinogen.

He praised the work of the International Dark-sky Association; the chair of its local chapter, David Ingram, was part of the audience at the talk. Bogard hopes The End of Night inspires a better approach to night lighting.

“What I was trying to do with the book is to raise awareness about the issue,” he said. “Once people become aware of the beauty that we’re talking about, what we’re losing, the threats of light pollution, I think most people will realize that we can do a better job of lighting the night or leaving some of it dark.”


Earthlings on Mars

If scientists eventually discover strange new life forms on Mars, then Bernie Bates is going to be out about $4 to members of the Tacoma Astronomical Society. Bates, professor of astronomy at the University of Puget Sound, made a friendly wager with those who attended his talk at the club’s meeting earlier this month. He has a shiny new dime that says we will find life on Mars and that it will look awfully familiar.

Bates expects we will have a definitive resolution to the wager by around 2026. NASA recently announced a Mars mission for 2020, and the ESA and Russia are working on a slightly earlier mission, both with an eye toward eventually returning samples of Mars rock and soil for analysis.

Bernie Bates

Bernie Bates, astronomy instructor at the University of Puget Sound, spoke about Mars exploration at the August meeting of the Tacoma Astronomical Society.

“They’re going to get samples back, they’re going to find microbes in it, and they’re going to pull the microbes apart,” Bates says. “The microbes are going to have DNA that we recognize, nucleotides that we recognize.”

“Life will be there on Mars,” Bates bets, “and it will be Earth life.”

The reason: Earth and Mars have been exchanging rocks for billions of years. “Mars is so close to us that there’s been cross-contamination between the two planets.”

Bates is confident he won’t have to pay off on the 10-cent wager about this multi-billion dollar question. But he isn’t offering odds or compound interest!

Recent science has been pretty conclusive about the past habitability of Mars, according to Bates, though Mars hasn’t been very Earth-like for the last two or three billion years.

“All of the geology questions in a sense have been answered,” he says. “We’ve got every potential smoking gun you can ask for for life on Mars.”

He expects we will find it.

“If Mars had life on it then it’s still there, someplace, probably underground,” Bates says, noting that microbial life is tough and adaptable. “The planet itself never did anything so hostile so quickly that it could wipe it out.”

Exploration of Mars was bumped up a notch or two with the arrival there of Curiosity a year ago, Bates says. A big reason is its power source, a radioisotope thermoelectric generator that will keep the rover operable for many years.

“They know they have enough time to do the science, they don’t have to rush, they can actually think through what they’re doing,” Bates says.

Time means flexibility. Bates notes that Curiosity spent the better part of its first year on an unplanned detour to explore the geology of an area named Glenelg near its Martian landing site.

“The spacecraft has an almost unlimited lifetime, they trust it, and they can do something like that” without jeopardizing the primary mission, Bates says.

Finding life on another planet, even if it actually originated here on Earth, wouldn’t exactly be ho-hum. Bates believes, though, that the greater discovery will come from a bit further out than Mars.

“If you want to find what the real search is for in the solar system, what they call second genesis, a different type of life, the Jovian people are the people to put your money on,” Bates says.

Money is a key factor. Interplanetary exploration costs a lot, and there’s not much to go around. The bulk of it is being invested in Mars these days, but Bates and many astrobiologists are rooting for more funding for those who want to probe the systems of Jupiter or Saturn. Both gas giant planets have moons that have interesting possibilities for life.

“Europa, Enceladus, that’s where the answers are,” Bates says.


Brilliant blunders can be portals to discovery

Mario Livio takes comfort in the gaffes of the greatest scientific minds of all time.

“There is something very reassuring in the fact that even these giants made major blunders,” he said during a talk Wednesday in Seattle to promote his new book. “People would ask me what the book was about; I’d tell them it’s called Brilliant Blunders, and it’s not an autobiography.”

Mario Livio

Mario Livio spoke about his latest book, Brilliant Blunders, May 15 at Town Hall Seattle. Photo: Greg Scheiderer.

In Brilliant Blunders Livio, senior astrophysicist at the Space Telescope Science Institute, examines major mistakes by some of the greatest scientists ever: Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Linus Pauling, Lord Kelvin, and Fred Hoyle. He talked about three of the examples during his lecture at Town Hall Seattle.

First, Livio took on Darwin and evolution, which Livio called “the single best idea that anybody has ever had.” Darwin’s blunder, though, was adopting a theory of blended heredity, which was a fairly widely accepted viewpoint of the time. Blended heredity held that the characteristics of a mother and father would be mixed, as one might mix a gin and tonic.

“Darwin did not understand, at first at least, that with blended heredity there is no way natural selection would have ever worked,” Livio said, noting that if you bred black and white cats, within a few generations you would only have gray. “In your gin and tonic, if you mix it with lots of tonic, in the end there is no gin.”

In Darwin’s time Gregor Mendel was coming up with the correct model for genetics, but Livio said Darwin didn’t know of Mendel’s work, and if he had he probably would not have understood it—“Darwin was very weak in mathematics,” he noted—but somehow Darwin had nailed evolution.

“When you have somebody who is a real genius some of the steps along the way may be wrong, but somehow their insight leads them to the correct result,” Livio said.

Brilliant blunders

The next big blunder considered was Linus Pauling’s attempt to come up with a structure for DNA.

“Pauling’s model for DNA had the wrong number of strands, it was built inside out, and there was nothing to hold it together. Worse yet, he tried to hold it together with hydrogens,” Livio marveled. The “A” in DNA stands for acid, which Livio explained means that when you put it in water it should release hydrogen. But in Pauling’s model hydrogen was holding the structure together, so it couldn’t release it.

“Here was the greatest chemist of the world proposing a model the violated the basic rules of chemistry!” Livio exclaimed. He discusses Pauling’s shortcoming at length in the book, but said it may have been a combination of a race to publish and a bit of egotism from previous successes.

“If I work out the basic structure,” Livio surmised Pauling may have been thinking, “all of the other details will work out.”

Finally Livio took on Einstein, whom he called “the embodiment of genius.” Livio noted that when Einstein developed the theory of relativity he assumed that the universe was standing still. But that couldn’t be, because its gravity would cause it to collapse on itself. So Einstein added what Livio called a “fudge factor”—the cosmological constant—to make things balance out.

Then, when Lemaître and Hubble found the universe to be expanding, Einstein concluded he didn’t need the constant and took the term out of his equation. Fast-forward to 1998 and the discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating—because of the constant.

“Einstein’s blunder was to take the term out, not to put it in!” Livio said. “If he left that term in he could have predicted that the universe should be accelerating.”

The conclusion Livio draws from these brilliant blunders is that science can be messy and that there’s no straight line to the truth. Goofs are good.

“When you think outside the box you’re likely to make mistakes every now and then,” he said. “If you want to be certain all the time, your progress will be so incremental that you actually may miss the real breakthroughs.”

“This is not to advocate for sloppy science,” Livio continued. “This is just to say that you have to allow for these things that I call brilliant blunders. You have to allow for the possibility of making breakthroughs through processes that occasionally will actually hit upon various obstacles.

“Scientific blunders can be portals to discovery.”



Mario Livio highlights week of great space and astronomy events

Writers should generally avoid clichés. Given today’s end of a great streak of good observing weather, and some great choices for science lectures in the next week, “When it rains, it pours” seems an apt statement even for an astronomy blog.

Mario Livio

Mario Livio will speak about Brilliant Scientific Blunders at Town Hall Seattle Wednesday evening.

The headliner for the week is astrophysicist and author Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute, who will speak at Town Hall Seattle on Wednesday, May 15, about his new book, Brilliant Blunders, being released this week. Livio’s premise is that even the great ones like Einstein and Darwin goof, and that’s good; science thrives on error, advancing when incorrect theories are disproven. Livio also is the author of Is God a Mathematician?, and he’s one of half a dozen experts featured in an article of the May issue of Astronomy magazine who help explain the size, shape, and limits of the universe. Livio’s talk at Town Hall begins at 7:30 p.m. Tickets are $5 and are available online.

Other choices for the week:


Another Town Hall Seattle event May 13 is actually a triple feature. At 6 p.m. University of Washington Ph.D. students Patti Carroll and Meg Smith will talk about their work as part of the U.W. Science Now series. Carroll will talk about radio astronomy and the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. Hint: It’s not exactly like the movie “Contact.” Smith will talk about the mysteries of Mars and the possibility that life once existed there. As a bonus, tickets for these two talks also get you in to a 7:30 p.m. lecture by Daniel Dennett titled “Thinking About Thinking Itself.”


At a “Science Café” event May 14 at the Swiss Pub in Tacoma U.W. Prof. Joshua Bandfield will give a talk titled, “To the Moon, Mars & Beyond: Robotic Spacecraft Exploration.” Bandfield will discuss the pros and cons of using no-crew spacecraft to explore the solar system. Bandfield is an engaging speaker who keynoted the Seattle Astronomical Society annual banquet in 2010. Admission is free to the Science Café, though it would be good to buy a brew. The series is sponsored by the Pacific Science Center and KCTS9 television.


Theodor Jacobsen Observatory

The Seattle Astronomical Society meets at the U.W. on Wednesday evening, with its main topic being a discussion of considerations for buying a first telescope. It’s just late for Mother’s Day, but it’s never to early to start thinking about Christmas! SAS meets at 7:30 p.m. in room A102 of the Physics/Astronomy Building on the U.W. campus.

Also at the U.W. May 15 they’ll hold one of the bi-monthly open houses at the Theodor Jacobsen Observatory. Three different U.W. students will give talks during  the evening, and Seattle Astronomical Society volunteers will be on had for tours of the vintage building and, if weather permits, a look through the Alvan Clark Telescope in the dome. Events begin at 9 p.m., and advance reservations are strongly encouraged for the talks.

Jon Jenkins

Jon Jenkins will give two talks about the hunt for exoplanets Thursday at the University of Washington


Back to the U.W. again on May 16 for a pair of events featuring Jon Jenkins of the SETI Institute and the NASA Ames Research Center. Jenkins will speak at the U.W. Astronomy Department Colloquium at 4 p.m. in room A102 of the Physics/Astronomy Building, and give a public lecture at 7:30 p.m. in Kane Hall room 120. The colloquium will be a highly technical talk about the Kepler mission, while the public lecture will be a more general exploration of the search for exoplanets.

You can keep track of area space and astronomy events by watching the Seattle Astronomy calendar. Also follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.


Galileo was a sneak

Galileo still has many folks bamboozled. The narrative persists more than four centuries after he trained his telescope on Jupiter that Galileo’s discovery of the giant planet’s moons proved, despite the dogmatic objections of the church, that Copernicus was right about the sun being at the center of the solar system.

Dennis Danielson

Dennis Danielson

Dennis Danielson says much of that common narrative is false. Danielson is a professor of English at the University of British Columbia. Milton is his professional bailiwick, but he’s got a strong interest in rhetoric and the history of science, which has led him to publish a couple of books on astronomy and astronomers. He’s the editor of The Book of the Cosmos (Basic Books, 2002) and wrote The First Copernican (Walker & Company, 2006). It was during his work on the latter, about Georg Joachim Rheticus, the young German mathematician who was largely responsible for getting Copernicus’s De revolutionibus published, that Danielson developed what he calls a “perfectly discreet, I assure you, love affair with Copernicus.”

Danielson spoke Thursday at the University of Washington astronomy colloquium, and later that evening at a meeting of the Boeing Employees Astronomical Society. He said that in addition to Galileo’s obvious genius in many areas, he was a top-notch public relations practitioner, a successful propagandist, and a bit of a sneak.

Danielson said Galileo wasn’t telling the whole story with his masterwork Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the publication that supposedly confirmed Copernicus and got Galileo into hot water with the Vatican.

“I really do want to be respectful of Galileo, but he sewed some misinformation, starting right on the title page of his work, that I would propose to you has played into the twisted story of cosmology” and some longstanding misperceptions, Danielson said.

The catch, according to Danielson, is that the title page and the entire Diologo depict the scientific debate as one between the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. In fact, Ptolemy’s system was well on its way out by the time the Dialogue was published in 1632, and the system drawn up by Tycho Brahe in 1588 was much favored by scientists for many decades to follow. The Copernican model was not really proven for some 200 years.

In fact Galileo’s own observation of the phases of Venus in 1610, 22 years before Dialogue, essentially knocked Ptolemy out of the cosmological playoffs.

“This was in fact striking another blow to the scientific underpinnings of the Ptolemaic system,” Danielson said, “but this demonstration supports Copernicanism only if there is no alternative other than Ptolemy.”

But Tycho’s system was an alternative that also correctly predicted the phases of Venus. Kepler with The Rudolphine Tables in 1627, Riccioli with Almagestum Novum in 1651, and Hooke with An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations in 1674 all tended to favor the Tychonic system over Copernicus more than a century after “De Rev” and 42 years after Galileo’s Dialogue.

“If the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems truly were the only two great systems of the universe, then you could logically affirm the one by denying the other,” Danielson said. “But Galileo was wrong that those were the two great systems. Not in his day, not in Hooke’s. There was a third, the Tychonic system, which answered most of the criticisms of the other geocentric and geostatic systems without getting into all of those absurd claims about a moving Earth.”

There were other scientific challenges for proving Copernicus. They couldn’t detect parallax, as it turned out the observations were not yet precise enough. Some stars appeared as disks in telescopes, which turned out to be an illusion but argued against Copernicus at the time. Scientists expected to observe a Coriolis effect if Earth rotated, but Coriolis didn’t get around to finally seeing it until 1835.

“The physics that underpinned Copernicanism wasn’t fully developed until Newton,” Danielson said, “and the scientific impediments to a full-scale acceptance of Copernicanism were not removed until the 19th Century.”

Danielson gives Galileo credit for being right in the end.

“His book was powerful. He so firmly planted the idea that there was an A or a B, so established that way of thinking, it became easy for us to forget” that Tycho’s was long the preferred model until Newton came up with the physics that supported the Copernican model.



Lee Smolin says time is real

Seattle is a city full of geeks, it seems, and a bunch of us piled into the dark basement of Town Hall Seattle on a beautiful spring evening Tuesday to hear three talks about quantum mechanics, neutrinos, and the nature of time.

Dr. Lee Smolin was the headliner of the evening. Smolin has kicked up quite a ruckus with his new book, Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe. In it, Smolin takes issue with a core notion of modern physics.

“We experience the world in time, we think in time, we act in time; this is so central to our conception of being human,” Smolin said. “But the scientific world view teaches that time is an illusion.”

Smolin added that, in his view, that claim is based on several incorrect arguments.

“Einstein and others who took that point of view are wrong for scientific reasons, and I try to make the scientific case for bringing back time to the center of our thinking and the center of our conception of nature,” he said.

Smolin rejects the notion that a mathematical description of the universe outside of time is the true reality, and that is the “crisis” of the book’s subtitle.

“If the experience of time is not central to reality, then neither are any human hopes and aspirations and the qualities that we so admire like decisiveness and imagination,” he said.

Smolin acknowledged that his arguments live somewhere in between physics and philosophy.

“I think that it’s essential to have the benefit of the history of thought when you’re tackling the deepest and hardest questions that we face, and the nature of time is one of them,” he contended.

The notion that time is an illusion has had its uses over the years, Smolin suggested, but added that the main fallacy of the approach has been what he called “physics in a box”, a method for studying small parts of the universe and then trying to extrapolate universal truths from that study. But he noted that you can’t put the whole universe into a box, and that the observers and the measuring systems in the experiments are typically outside of the box. And he said that even the laws of physics must be evolving, or if they aren’t, then they aren’t science.

“If the laws are truly outside of time then they’re inexplicable to any method that is checkable by science, because science requires experimentation and we can only experiment on things that can be modified,” Smolin said. “So if the laws are outside of time we just have to become mystics.”

The nature of time is a challenging topic for an hour-long talk, and Smolin had to punt a few times, noting that several concepts were topics for another hour, and that much more in-depth discussion could be found in the book.

We’re intrigued enough to grab a copy. You can get yours here.

Two talks by University of Washington graduate students preceded Smolin’s presentation. The talks were part of the UW’s Engage: The Science Speaker Series.

Ironically, Alan Jamison’s talk was definitely physics in the box. He gave an engaging presentation, titled “Cooling Atoms With Blinding Hot Light,” about his lab work to look at the behavior of ytterbium atoms, an element he joked “sits in a dark corner of the periodic table.”

“The first step in cooling atoms,” Jamison said, “is to heat them up.” As they vibrate intensely in the heat, individual atoms break off. Then they cool them down by shining lights on them; ytterbium has a resonance with certain green and purple wavelengths, and they can eventually slow the motion of the atoms down enough to get photos of clusters of them and study their behavior.

More on Jamison’s work at the Ultracold Atoms Group at the UW.

Jared Kofron followed with a talk about “A Massive Problem: A Brief History of the Tiny Neutrino.”

Kofron noted that the neutrino is the smallest particle we know of. “It’s a very strange, mysterious particle that has taught us a lot about the universe.” His talk was an accessible history of the neutrino.

The particle was dreamed up in the 1930s as a way to explain why energy seemed to be vanishing with beta decay. This created something of a panic, and German physicist Wolfgang Pauli proposed the neutrino as “a desperate remedy to save physics.” The notion of a particle that was incredibly penetrating, basically massless, and never observable was not too popular among scientists at first. But it fixed everything.

“Experiments made sense when viewed in the context of the neutrino,” Kofron said. “If you added the possibility that this little guy was carrying off all of the missing energy, all of a sudden the books balanced. From an experimental point of view, this was a real coup, this was a beautiful addition to the theory.”

More about Kofron’s work at the Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics at UW.
Reviews of Time Reborn:
Other books by Lee Smolin: