January 7, 2024 at 5:00 PM

Astronomy Beyond the Human Eye

@Seawriter

CONTRIBUTOR

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

Light is our window to the world. Yet we see through only a small window of the full spectrum of light. The visible spectrum is one percent of it, and there is much to observe outside the visible spectrum.

“The Invisible Universe: Why There’s More to Reality than Meets the Eye,” by Matthew Bothwell, explores the world of light – visible and invisible. It reveals the secrets hidden in the invisible portion of the spectrum, and shows what it tells us about the universe.

Bothwell takes readers on a journey through time and space. He explores the deepest recesses of the cosmos bringing readers into the distance past and far future. He also takes readers into the historical past. He explores the history of astronomy from ancient times to the present to show how our discoveries changed how we view everything.

He starts with the visible spectrum. He shows how visual astronomy grew and evolved over millennia. He shows how we used it to discover not just what the stars and planets were, but what they were made of.

From there he explores invisible wavelengths, starting with infrared and moving into microwaves and the radio spectrum. He shows how each part of the spectrum revealed new secrets about the universe. This includes revealing the size of the universe, and showing it is composed of innumerable galaxies. That Earth is a lonely outpost on an obscure star.

He also explores the odd creatures that make up the universe: black holes, quasars, interstellar dust, dark stars, dark matter and dark energy. (As Bothwell shows, astronomers use the word “dark” as a synonym for “unknown.” He also presents some of its true oddities like gravity waves.

He discusses the tools used to enhance observation. The oldest, the telescope is only 500 years old. Most, including infrared instruments and radio telescopes, date to the late 19th or 20th centuries. The space age revolutionized astronomy, allowing instruments to get above an atmosphere that blocked many wavelengths.

“The Invisible Universe” is a delightful book. Without using equations or scientific jargon Bothwell opens the world of astronomy to everyday readers. He presents the stunning accomplishments in the field in terms lay people can understand. He does so with humor and understandable analogy. Further, he passes the sense of wonder his profession gives him to his readers. Even those normally bored by science will be hooked by this book.

“The Invisible Universe: Why There’s More to Reality than Meets the Eye,” by Matthew Bothwell, Oneworld Publications, December 2021, ‎ 320 pages, $27.95 (Hardcover), $18.95 (paperback), $0.99 (E-book)

This review was written by Mark Lardas, who writes at Ricochet as Seawriter. Mark Lardas, an engineer, freelance writer, historian, and model-maker, lives in League City, TX. His website is marklardas.com.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by an editor.

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

Nanocelt TheContrarian@NanoceltTheContrarian2y

I don't know if the author of this book mentions it, but one of the ironies of modernity regarding light relates to David Hume and James Clerck Maxwell. Hume in the 17th Century, "empiricist" that he was (in philosophy, "empiricism" doesn't actually mean doing experiments to see what happens--in Hume's case, to call him an empiricist almost amounts to criminal use of language--it's just that Hume insisted we couldn't know much of anything without some sensory input, and skepticism is warranted in all cases, even in consistent empirical observations; for example, he insisted that one can't be sure the sun will rise in the morning even though it has done so for billions of years--it could happen that tomorrow, if tomorrow can be defined without the sunrise, it might not--he should have been called a skeptic rather than an empiricist).

Hume famously insisted that we poor humans, limited as we are, couldn't be sure that the cosmos beyond our direct experience on earth has any similarity to our small and limited world.

A century later, the man who "explained" light (he produced the beautiful, symmetric equations of electromagnetism that showed that light was an electromagnetic wave), James Clerck Maxwell, waxed eloquent on how we know that the cosmos is the same everywhere: He noted that the visible light spectra emitted by hydrogen and other atoms is the same in the distant galaxies as it is on earth. That atoms and molecules identified by their spectra are the same throughout the cosmos. So much for Hume, one would think, but, alas, philosophy being what it is, Hume is embraced as an historic paragon of insight and wisdom. Go figure.

But the irony continues. Maxwell's equations confirmed that light was an electromagnetic wave. That meant that a medium must exist for the propagation of that wave. So the Ether was postulated. At the end of the 19th Century, so sure were some scientists of the electromagnetic wave nature of light, that they considered the Ether (though undetectable) to be the most certain thing in the Universe.

In contrast, Isaac Newton, whose Optics established a paradigm of the experimental method, never accepted that light is a wave, though his own work demonstrated the wave nature of light. Newton himself appears to have been reluctant to fully embrace his own work. He now appears prescient.

Michelson and Morley attempted to demonstrate the existence of the ether with their famous experiment, attempting to show a doppler shift that would confirm the ether. They failed. The doppler shift did not show up. A mathematician, Henrick Lorentz (and George Fitzgerald before him), postulated that the Michelson-Morley apparatus experienced a tiny contraction in the direction of motion that offset the shift in wavelength. Later, Einstein reversed this view and postulated that space itself contracted, that the speed of light itself was the constant, to produce his theory of Special Relativity (out of which emerged the famous equivalence of mass and energy, E=mc2, to usher in the atomic age, with the equation confirmed at Trinity site at White Sands on July 16, 1945). He later revised and extended this Special Theory to General Relativity, the fundamental axiom of which is that the Laws of Physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. Take that, David Hume!

And in that theory, light, both visible and invisible, defines the very Space-Time that is the Universe.

In another direction, Max Planck investigated a rather remarkable discrepancy: The Maxwell equations predicted that the energy of a black body radiator would rise exponentially to infinity as the wavelength of light approached the ultraviolet. That did not happen. Planck empirically derived an equation that fit the experimental results by introducing small discrete intervals of change reflected in what came to be called Planck's Constant, one of the most fundamental constants of the Universe. Indeed,that constant ushered in the Quantum era. It fell to Einstein, in explaining the photoelectric effect, to show that, as per that constant, light is a particle. It soon became evident that light is a particle and a wave, exhibiting, along with other fundamental particles, wave-particle duality.And, just like that, the Ether was consigned to the ash heap of Scientific history. No longer needed at all. Particles don't require a medium for propagation.

So the study of light gave rise to the two foremost scientific theories of modernity, General Relativity and Quantum mechanics.

The irony doesn't end there, however, as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are essentially mutually exclusive. They are incompatible with each other, even though both have grown out of the study of light.(and to boot,Quantum mechanics, as Richard Feynman put it, is understood by no one! that refers to the great riddle of Quantum Mechanics, that Consciousness collapses the wave equation).

The great quest of Physics, to find a Theory of Everything, that would combine these two great theories, has thus far been unsuccessful, just as the quest for the Holy Grail, underscoring our persisting ignorance. The most extensive work in melding the two has been String Theory, that has resulted in a sort of Babel of Science: The aim of scientists is to have the fundamental constants of the Universe be implied inherently in the equations, as the speed of light was in Maxwell's equations. To the contrary String Theory has shown that there is no accounting for the fundamental constants of the Universe, whose values could vary. However, if they did, the Universe as we know it would not exist. The String Theorists tell us that the likelihood of the Universe having the precise values for the fundamental constants that they have (and thus existing in a way that results in us being in it, otherwise impossible) is one in 10 to the 500th power. E.g. veritably impossible. The Scientists invoke the "Anthropic Principle" as a sort of circular way of explaining the otherwise inexplicable Universe: That as we are here to observe the Universe, it must needs have been that the fundamental constants have the values they have. Otherwise we wouldn't be here observing the Universe.

To put that in other language, which, sadly, the scientists would not approve, though the meaning is the same, and the phrase more succinct:

The Universe was made for Man, not Man for the Universe.

Or: Consciousness [Logos] precedes Being (Cosmos), as Vaclav Havel said.

And this points to the ultimate source of the Light of the World. The beginning of all Creation.

Discussion (5)

CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms@GLDIII2y
Given that professionally I have worked on Astronomical missions with Visible sensors (HST), Infrared sensors (HST, Roman ST), X-ray sensors (BBXRT) , and Microwave sensors (COBE) plus a few others that look at the sun and far off planets. I guess I should read up on what I am missing... It's on order from Amazon. Thank you Mark.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Nanocelt TheContrarian@NanoceltTheContrarian2y
I don't know if the author of this book mentions it, but one of the ironies of modernity regarding light relates to David Hume and James Clerck Maxwell. Hume in the 17th Century, "empiricist" that he was (in philosophy, "empiricism" doesn't actually mean doing experiments to see what happens--in Hume's case, to call him an empiricist almost amounts to criminal use of language--it's just that Hume insisted we couldn't know much of anything without some sensory input, and skepticism is warranted in all cases, even in consistent empirical observations; for example, he insisted that one can't be sure the sun will rise in the morning even though it has done so for billions of years--it could happen that tomorrow, if tomorrow can be defined without the sunrise, it might not--he should have been called a skeptic rather than an empiricist).
Hume famously insisted that we poor humans, limited as we are, couldn't be sure that the cosmos beyond our direct experience on earth has any similarity to our small and limited world.
A century later, the man who "explained" light (he produced the beautiful, symmetric equations of electromagnetism that showed that light was an electromagnetic wave), James Clerck Maxwell, waxed eloquent on how we know that the cosmos is the same everywhere: He noted that the visible light spectra emitted by hydrogen and other atoms is the same in the distant galaxies as it is on earth. That atoms and molecules identified by their spectra are the same throughout the cosmos. So much for Hume, one would think, but, alas, philosophy being what it is, Hume is embraced as an historic paragon of insight and wisdom. Go figure.
But the irony continues. Maxwell's equations confirmed that light was an electromagnetic wave. That meant that a medium must exist for the propagation of that wave. So the Ether was postulated. At the end of the 19th Century, so sure were some scientists of the electromagnetic wave nature of light, that they considered the Ether (though undetectable) to be the most certain thing in the Universe.
In contrast, Isaac Newton, whose Optics established a paradigm of the experimental method, never accepted that light is a wave, though his own work demonstrated the wave nature of light. Newton himself appears to have been reluctant to fully embrace his own work. He now appears prescient.
Michelson and Morley attempted to demonstrate the existence of the ether with their famous experiment, attempting to show a doppler shift that would confirm the ether. They failed. The doppler shift did not show up. A mathematician, Henrick Lorentz (and George Fitzgerald before him), postulated that the Michelson-Morley apparatus experienced a tiny contraction in the direction of motion that offset the shift in wavelength. Later, Einstein reversed this view and postulated that space itself contracted, that the speed of light itself was the constant, to produce his theory of Special Relativity (out of which emerged the famous equivalence of mass and energy, E=mc2, to usher in the atomic age, with the equation confirmed at Trinity site at White Sands on July 16, 1945). He later revised and extended this Special Theory to General Relativity, the fundamental axiom of which is that the Laws of Physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. Take that, David Hume!
And in that theory, light, both visible and invisible, defines the very Space-Time that is the Universe.
In another direction, Max Planck investigated a rather remarkable discrepancy: The Maxwell equations predicted that the energy of a black body radiator would rise exponentially to infinity as the wavelength of light approached the ultraviolet. That did not happen. Planck empirically derived an equation that fit the experimental results by introducing small discrete intervals of change reflected in what came to be called Planck's Constant, one of the most fundamental constants of the Universe. Indeed,that constant ushered in the Quantum era. It fell to Einstein, in explaining the photoelectric effect, to show that, as per that constant, light is a particle. It soon became evident that light is a particle and a wave, exhibiting, along with other fundamental particles, wave-particle duality.And, just like that, the Ether was consigned to the ash heap of Scientific history. No longer needed at all. Particles don't require a medium for propagation.
So the study of light gave rise to the two foremost scientific theories of modernity, General Relativity and Quantum mechanics.
The irony doesn't end there, however, as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are essentially mutually exclusive. They are incompatible with each other, even though both have grown out of the study of light.(and to boot,Quantum mechanics, as Richard Feynman put it, is understood by no one! that refers to the great riddle of Quantum Mechanics, that Consciousness collapses the wave equation).
The great quest of Physics, to find a Theory of Everything, that would combine these two great theories, has thus far been unsuccessful, just as the quest for the Holy Grail, underscoring our persisting ignorance. The most extensive work in melding the two has been String Theory, that has resulted in a sort of Babel of Science: The aim of scientists is to have the fundamental constants of the Universe be implied inherently in the equations, as the speed of light was in Maxwell's equations. To the contrary String Theory has shown that there is no accounting for the fundamental constants of the Universe, whose values could vary. However, if they did, the Universe as we know it would not exist. The String Theorists tell us that the likelihood of the Universe having the precise values for the fundamental constants that they have (and thus existing in a way that results in us being in it, otherwise impossible) is one in 10 to the 500th power. E.g. veritably impossible. The Scientists invoke the "Anthropic Principle" as a sort of circular way of explaining the otherwise inexplicable Universe: That as we are here to observe the Universe, it must needs have been that the fundamental constants have the values they have. Otherwise we wouldn't be here observing the Universe.
To put that in other language, which, sadly, the scientists would not approve, though the meaning is the same, and the phrase more succinct:
The Universe was made for Man, not Man for the Universe.
Or: Consciousness [Logos] precedes Being (Cosmos), as Vaclav Havel said.
And this points to the ultimate source of the Light of the World. The beginning of all Creation.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Percival@Percival2y
ReplyingtoNanocelt TheContrarian
Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):
To put that in other language, which, sadly, the scientists would not approve, though the meaning is the same, and the phrase more succinct:
The Universe was made for Man, not Man for the Universe.
Or: Consciousness [Logos] precedes Being (Cosmos), as Vaclav Havel said.
And this points to the ultimate source of the Light of the World. The beginning of all Creation.
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Seawriter@Seawriter2y
ReplyingtoNanocelt TheContrarian
Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):
I don’t know if the author of this book mentions it, but one of the ironies of modernity regarding light relates to David Hume and James Clerck Maxwell.
I am not going to quote further from your quote. It is excellent, but extremely long. To excerpt it (beyond the first sentence) would not do justice to it, while quoting the whole thing and answering your points individually risks other readers marking it TL:DR.
What I will say is most of the points you raised are similarly raised and explored in this book. That includes exploring the concept that the universe was made for man and not man for the universe.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Nanocelt TheContrarian@NanoceltTheContrarian2y
ReplyingtoSeawriter
Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):
I don’t know if the author of this book mentions it, but one of the ironies of modernity regarding light relates to David Hume and James Clerck Maxwell.
Seawriter (View Comment):
I am not going to quote further from your quote. It is excellent, but extremely long. To excerpt it (beyond the first sentence) would not do justice to it, while quoting the whole thing and answering your points individually risks other readers marking it TL:DR.
What I will say is most of the points you raised are similarly raised and explored in this book. That includes exploring the concept that the universe was made for man and not man for the universe.
Sounds to me like the book is a must read. Thanks.