Science blog

We are looking for an across-the-board solution for our present exorbitant consumption of gasoline and it seems as though there is none, at least for the present. We are looking at Ethanol additive to our present gasoline formulas, but this will only give us better miles per gallon and of course, much cleaner bi-products with its use. Ethanol becomes a temporary fix...at best. The reason, of course is the need for the corn base sugars(and other similar sugar and starch crops) to produce it. It is a simple deduction that it will eventually begin to deplete the food stock of our nation and also hurt our exports of these grains. We could, with the anticipated increase in need of our corn crop, grow the extra acreage that would be needed to meet any anticipated needs. We must keep in mind the amount of labor that would be required to accomplish this task. The question remains...Will the Ethanol approach keep the price below our present gasoline prices ? All in all, we must accept the fact that we will not be able to have our gas and eat our corn muffins too. There are also other crops which can be used to derive the Ethanol fuel, such as soybeans, sugar beet, raw sugarcane, etc.. The fact still remains...the choice will be gas for our automobiles and along with this will eventually come a vast depletion of one or more of our key domestic and export crops. It does not mean that this scenario will eventually come to be, but without other renewable energy fuels developed in tandem, such as the Hydrogen based fuel cell to assist the Ethanol fuel approach, this could lend itself to some key food staple shortages. The final question may be..."Do we prefer wheels beneath our feet, or food in our stomachs." Common sense tells us that at this point in time, we must proceed with great caution. Granted, the very large south American country of Brazil has embarked on their Ethanol program for approximately a decade now, with fairly good results and have enjoyed the weaning from foreign oil. Will it ever be 100% remains to be seen. Solar energy is one possible approach being tinkered with to produce Hydrogen in order to power our future power plants and it is hoped that electricity, which now helps to deplete our fossil fuels will help us to deliver the fuel needed to produce power for advanced "Fuel Cells" being developed to power the automobiles and trucks, etc. of the future. Unfortunately, producing Hydrogen by using solar energy electricity is very inefficient. This being said, solar energy is fully renewable and therefore must be considered. Along with the Hydrogen fuel from Solar approach comes recent announcements of some breakthroughs holding great promise using Solar to economically produce the hydrogen needed for fuel cells for both the automobile and our industrial needs and not using up all of our food resources in the process.

Theoretical cosmologists spend much of their time perfecting what is now known as the 'Big Bang' theory. This concept originates from ideas percolating in the minds of scientists, theologians and astronomers down through the ages. However, much of what they consider as proof for the 'Big Bang' is dependent upon uncontrolled experimentation that is molded to meet their expectations. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. This ancient description of the creation of the universe found in the Book of Genesis may be accurate after all. The big bang theory describes the beginning of the universe as having been precipitated from an infinitesimally small point. In this small volume, all matter and energy was concentrated until its contents exploded in either a smooth expansion or an incredibly violent energetic explosion that formed the planets, stars and galaxies. Originally this theory had competition from what is called the 'steady state' theory whereby the universe is forever expanding and new matter and energy is created spontaneously within the space left by the receding galaxies. However, empirical observations have directed astronomers and scientists into the acceptance of the big bang model. But how did we get to this point in our understanding? In the early part of the twentieth century the American astronomer Vesto Slipher and the German Carl Wirtz made some important astronomical discoveries. Using spectral analysis, Slipher deciphered the mixtures of gases contained in planetary atmospheres as well as nebulae. What distinguishes his findings is the discovery that most if not all galaxies outside of our own demonstrate what is called a 'Red Shift.' This shift is simply a change in the wavelength of the light emitted by those objects under investigation towards a longer wavelength. Wirtz similarly catalogued many red shifts of the nebulae which he chose to study. But it was still to early for them to realize the full potential meaning of their observations. That would wait until Einstein's General Relativity would be interpreted by other scientists through further mathematical analysis. His contemporaries demonstrated to Einstein that his new Theory of General Relativity published in 1916 was not compatible with a 'static' universe of space time. The theory predicted an expanding or collapsing universe but not a fixed cosmos. Because he personally believed the universe to be an invariable space time continuum, Einstein engaged in a degree of scientific legerdemain. To correct what he perceived to be as 'flaws' in his theory he added the contrivance of a cosmological constant known as lambda to force the static universe into reality. Einstein's view of perfection in an unchanging space time continuum had led him down a blind alley as much as Aristotle's concept of perfection had brought that great philosopher into the error of believing in a static Earth at the center of the universe. But even with the addition of the cosmological constant lambda, the universe was still found to be unstable and this whole affair would later be viewed by Einstein as his "greatest blunder." His cosmological acrobatics behind him, Einstein yielded the stage to others for a clearer understanding of his own theory. It fell to Alexander Alexandrovich Friedmann to consider the consequences of General Relativity without the constant lambda interfering with his study of these relationships. In doing so, the Russian mathematician and cosmologist derived the solution which predicts an ever expanding cosmological structure (1922), a prediction which was disagreeable with Einstein's concept of universal perfection. A couple of years later, Friedmann published his findings in "About the Possibility of a World with Constant Negative Curvature of Space." But the entire hypothetical construct still lacked a complete verbalization mathematically and theoretically. Enter the Reverend Father Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest from Belgium. Rev. Fr. Lemaitre provided the equations necessary to formulate the basis of Big Bang theory in his work entitled "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom." He postulated that the universe began as a primordial atom of infinitesimal volume and enormous mass energy as well as space and time and everything else comprising the future universe. At some point the universe began with the explosion of this super atom. Lemaitre published his theoretical ideas between the years 1927 and 1933 and speculated that the movement of the nebulae demonstrated the validity of the explosion of his cosmic super atom. Unfortunately, he also wrongly believed that cosmic rays might be an after effect of the super atom's big bang. These are now known to be generated not from a universal conflagration but from galactic sources unrelated to the big bang. However, the new theory still lacked a major source of observational support. This would be provided by Edwin Hubble's observations of the redshift of galaxies. Taking up where Slipher and Wirtz left off, Hubble employed a novel technique to discern the properties of the galactic movements. By choosing to observe stars that are known as Cepheid Variables he could more accurately make measurements. Cepheids are a type of star that brighten and darken and lighten back up in regular periods of time that are well known. Cepheids that have identical cycle times of brightening darkening and brightening again also have identical or nearly identical luminosity. Thus, if one compares the length of the cycle to the amount of light apparent to the observer it is possible to accurately prepare an estimate of the distance to the cepheid. In this manner, Hubble had found that the nebulae or galaxies exhibited a galactic red shift; in other words, that galaxies were receding away from ours at a speed which is correlated directly with the distance between our vantage point and the galaxy being studied. The further away the galaxies were the faster they appeared to be going in moving away from us. The results of these investigations is now known as Hubble's Law. Essentially, this law states that universe is in an ever expanding mode whereby the intergalactic distances continue to grow without bound into infinity. Hubble's Law depends upon the shifting of the wavelength of light and after having been delineated in 1929 has been subsequently proven over and over again. Further, Hubble's constant has been recalculated to a more 'perfect' value and retains a great probability of being 'recomputed' in the future based upon new observations. Thus, it should be clear to the reader that our scientists have a fateful habit of introducing their preconceived notions of beauty into their models. From Aristotle's static Earth to Einstein's greatest blunder, the constant which forces a static universe, we proceed only from the wisdom of our weak minds. The more things change the more things stay the same. Man's hubris knows no limits in our attempts to understand things without the wisdom to comprehend its underlying meaning. Humble we are not. We are making the same mistakes we always have. Back to the future. To be continued...

I. The Six Arguments against SETI The various projects that comprise the 45-years old Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) raise two important issues: (1) do Aliens exist and (2) can we communicate with them. If they do and we can, how come we never encountered an extraterrestrial, let alone spoken to or corresponded with one? There are six basic explanations to this apparent conundrum and they are not mutually exclusive: (1) That Aliens do not exist; (2) That the technology they use is far too advanced to be detected by us and, the flip side of this hypothesis, that the technology we us is insufficiently advanced to be noticed by them; (3) That we are looking for extraterrestrials at the wrong places; (4) That the Aliens are life forms so different to us that we fail to recognize them as sentient beings or to communicate with them; (5) That Aliens are trying to communicate with us but constantly fail due to a variety of hindrances, some structural and some circumstantial; (6) That they are avoiding us because of our misconduct (example: the alleged destruction of the environment) or because of our traits (for instance, our innate belligerence) or because of ethical considerations. Argument Number 1: Aliens do not exist (the Fermi Principle) The assumption that life has arisen only on Earth is both counterintuitive and unlikely. Rather, it is highly probable that life is an extensive parameter of the Universe. In other words, that it is as pervasive and ubiquitous as are other generative phenomena, such as star formation. This does not mean that extraterrestrial life and life on Earth are necessarily similar. Environmental determinism and the panspermia hypothesis are far from proven. There is no guarantee that we are not unique, as per the Rare Earth hypothesis. But the likelihood of finding life in one form or another elsewhere and everywhere in the Universe is high. The widely-accepted mediocrity principle (Earth is a typical planet) and its reification, the controversial Drake (or Sagan) Equation usually predicts the existence of thousands of Alien civilizations - though only a vanishingly small fraction of these are likely to communicate with us. But, if this is true, to quote Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi: "where are they?". Fermi postulated that ubiquitous technologically advanced civilizations should be detectable - yet they are not! (The Fermi Paradox). This paucity of observational evidence may be owing to the fact that our galaxy is old. In ten billion years of its existence, the majority of Alien races are likely to have simply died out or been extinguished by various cataclysmic events. Or maybe older and presumably wiser races are not as bent as we are on acquiring colonies. Remote exploration may have supplanted material probes and physical visits to wild locales such as Earth. Aliens exist on our very planet. The minds of newborn babies and of animals are as inaccessible to us as would be the minds of little green men and antenna-wielding adductors. Moreover, as we demonstrated in the previous chapter, even adult human beings from the same cultural background are as aliens to one another. Language is an inadequate and blunt instrument when it comes to communicating our inner worlds. Argument Number 2: Their technology is too advanced If Aliens really want to communicate with us, why would they use technologies that are incompatible with our level of technological progress? When we discover primitive tribes in the Amazon, do we communicate with them via e-mail or video conferencing - or do we strive to learn their language and modes of communication and emulate them to the best of our ability? Of course there is always the possibility that we are as far removed from Alien species as ants are from us. We do not attempt to interface with insects. If the gap between us and Alien races in the galaxy is too wide, they are unlikely to want to communicate with us at all. Argument Number 3: We are looking in all the wrong places If life is, indeed, a defining feature (an extensive property) of our Universe, it should be anisotropically, symmetrically, and equally distributed throughout the vast expanse of space. In other words, never mind where we turn our scientific instruments, we should be able to detect life or traces of life. Still, technological and budgetary constraints have served to dramatically narrow the scope of the search for intelligent transmissions. Vast swathes of the sky have been omitted from the research agenda as have been many spectrum frequencies. SETI scientists assume that Alien species are as concerned with efficiency as we are and, therefore, unlikely to use certain wasteful methods and frequencies to communicate with us. This assumption of interstellar scarcity is, of course, dubious. Argument Number 4: Aliens are too alien to be recognized Carbon-based life forms may be an aberration or the rule, no one knows. The diversionist and convergionist schools of evolution are equally speculative as are the basic assumptions of both astrobiology and xenobiology. The rest of the universe may be populated with silicon, or nitrogen-phosphorus based races or with information-waves or contain numerous, non-interacting "shadow biospheres". Recent discoveries of extremophile unicellular organisms lend credence to the belief that life can exist almost under any circumstances and in all conditions and that the range of planetary habitability is much larger than thought. But whatever their chemical composition, most Alien species are likely to be sentient and intelligent. Intelligence is bound to be the great equalizer and the Universal Translator in our Universe. We may fail to recognize certain extragalactic races as life-forms but we are unlikely to mistake their intelligence for a naturally occurring phenomenon. We are equipped to know other sentient intelligent species regardless of how advanced and different they are - and they are equally fitted to acknowledge us as such. Argument Number 5: We are failing to communicate with Aliens The hidden assumption underlying CETI/METI (Communication with ETI/Messaging to ETI) is that Aliens, like humans, are inclined to communicate. This may be untrue. The propensity for interpersonal communication (let alone the inter-species variety) may not be universal. Additionally, Aliens may not possess the same sense organs that we do (eyes) and may not be acquainted with our mathematics and geometry. Reality can be successfully described and captured by alternative mathematical systems and geometries. Additionally, we often confuse complexity or orderliness with artificiality. As the example of quasars teaches us, not all regular or constant or strong or complex signals are artificial. Even the very use of language may be a uniquely human phenomenon - though most xenolinguists contest such exclusivity. Moreover, as Wittgenstein observed, language is an essentially private affair: if a lion were to suddenly speak, we would not have understood it. Modern verificationist and referentialist linguistic theories seek to isolate the universals of language, so as to render all languages capable of translation - but they are still a long way off. Clarke's Third Law says that Alien civilizations well in advance of humanity may be deploying investigative methods and communicating in dialects undetectable even in principle by humans. Argument Number 6: They are avoiding us Advanced Alien civilizations may have found ways to circumvent the upper limit of the speed of light (for instance, by using wormholes). If they have and if UFO sightings are mere hoaxes and bunk (as is widely believed by most scientists), then we are back to Fermi's "where are they". One possible answer is they are avoiding us because of our misconduct (example: the alleged destruction of the environment) or because of our traits (for instance, our innate belligerence). Or maybe the Earth is a galactic wildlife reserve or a zoo or a laboratory (the Zoo hypothesis) and the Aliens do not wish to contaminate us or subvert our natural development. This falsely assumes that al

l Alien civilizations operate in unison and under a single code (the Uniformity of Motive fallacy). But how would they know to avoid contact with us? How would they know of our misdeeds and bad character? Our earliest radio signals have traversed no more than 130 light years omnidirectionally. Out television emissions are even closer to home. What other source of information could Aliens have except our own self-incriminating transmissions? None. In other words, it is extremely unlikely that our reputation precedes us. Luckily for us, we are virtual unknowns. As early as 1960, the implications of an encounter with an ETI were clear: "Evidences of its existence might also be found in artifacts left on the moon or other planets. The consequences for attitudes and values are unpredictable, but would vary profoundly in different cultures and between groups within complex societies; a crucial factor would be the nature of the communication between us and the other beings. Whether or not earth would be inspired to an all-out space effort by such a discovery is moot: societies sure of their own place in the universe have disintegrated when confronted by a superior society, and others have survived even though changed. Clearly, the better we can come to understand the factors involved in responding to such crises the better prepared we may be." (Brookins Institute - Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs, 1960) Perhaps we should not be looking forward to the First Encounter. It may also be our last. (contnued)

At the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) convention earlier this month in Chicago, former President Bill Clinton sent a message to those in attendance: the biotechnology industry has a job to do. In his speech, the former President discussed the importance that biotechnology has in food security and health issues in the developing world. He said the first obligation of society is to feed people and that biotechnology can help individuals feed more people while addressing environmental concerns. He also stressed the need for interdependence in the world today as well as the unsolved problems that biotechnology is uniquely suited to face. Clinton also discussed the need to efficiently manage agricultural production. He mentioned several key aspects of environmental health that agricultural biotechnology can address, including climate change and top soil erosion. “All of these applications of biotechnology have the potential to lift people out of poverty,” he said. The former President also asserted that scientific evidence should rule any debate over issues such as genetically modified foods. He said that in America, we “should be driven by science, evidence, and argument, not by assertion and fear.” Former President Clinton called upon the biotechnology industry to work to reduce the spread of a variety of diseases, including infectious diseases, guard against pandemics, create genetically engineered foods that will feed more of the world’s hungry, tap into sources of renewable energy, and confront global warming head on. “When we empower individuals to feed and care for their families,” he said. “It is a good thing.” As President, Bill Clinton supported the development of biotechnology and its practical applications in American life, as well as the development of genetic engineering and agriculture, and since he left office in 2001, President Clinton has dedicated almost all of his time to support causes, from raising funds for Hurricane Katrina victims in the United States to helping individuals with AIDS receive the drugs they need. He has seen first hand the needs that biotechnology can address around the world and the good that genetically modified foods can bring to developing nations in feeding the poor. I agree with what former President Clinton said in his speech. Modern biotechnology holds such an importance in the world today and these continued developments should not be driven by the fearful beliefs that those opposed to biotechnology and genetically modified foods continuously try to impose upon the general public. The world needs to support biotechnology, genetically modified foods, and the innovative developments the technology can bring in order to ensure a better future and life for all.