This essay is intended as an ongoing debate about God and the origin of the universe. In our previous essay, we explained how the rise of evidence that the universe had a beginning posed a great threat to materialistic worldviews. Eroding the foundations of atheism, the idea that the universe had an origin appeared to have strong theistic implications – with God as the best-known explanation for the first cause.
But is this still the case? Have newer advances in science, especially in the field of quantum cosmology, provided better, more plausible explanations for the origin of the universe? Is it time to dismiss God from the realm of rationality, at last?
Stephen Hawking thought so.
Now be prepared. We are going to be talking about quantum cosmology. Things will get complicated, whacky, and blimmin confusing at times. So sit up, grab your coffee and let’s dive in.
Stephen Hawking and quantum cosmology
Stephen Hawking was an English theoretical physicist and cosmologist who passed away in 2018. He had a rare early-onset, slow-progressing form of motor neurone disease, a fatal neurodegenerative disease that affects the motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord, which gradually paralysed him over decades. And yet, despite his severely disabled condition, Hawking went on to become one of the most influential theoretical physicists in history. He was a mathematical genius, and his work on the origins and structure of the universe, from the Big Bang to black holes, revolutionised the field.
Though Stephen Hawking had helped to prove the singularity theorems with Roger Penrose in 1970 and George Ellise in 1973, he found their implication of an absolute beginning of time and space philosophically disturbing and unsatisfying. As a result, Hawking began to formulate a cosmological model that he hoped would eliminate the implication of a beginning to our universe.
He did so by applying the physics of the very small, known as “quantum mechanics,” to analyse the universe when it was very small. In so doing, he challenged that idea that the universe had a definite beginning, and posed an objection to the evidential basis for the cosmological argument discussed in our previous essay.
Quantum mechanics describes the interactions and motions of subatomic particles that manifest both wavelike and particle-like behaviour (here’s our introductory essay on the subject). Whereas the expansion of the universe has produced a vast spatial volume in the present, at some point in the finite past the universe would have been small enough that physicists would need to consider how quantum mechanical effects would influence gravity. Physicists think that, in that small space, Einstein’s theory of gravity (general relativity) would effectively break down.
Instead, many physicists have suggested that gravitational attraction would have worked differently since the early universe would have been subject to quantum mechanical principles and unpredictable quantum fluctuations. So far physicists have not formulated an adequate theory of “quantum gravity” that coherently synthesises general relativity with quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, Hawking applied quantum mechanical ideas about how gravity might work on a subatomic scale to describe the universe in its earliest state.
Hawking found, however, that in order to make a precise mathematical calculation about the probable state of affairs in the early universe, he needed to use a calculating device that required introducing the concept of imaginary time. He introduced imaginary time into one of Einstein’s mathematical expressions (called the spacetime metric) that describes the geometry (or curvature) of spacetime. Since this expression includes a time variable, Hawking simply equated time with ‘imaginary time’ to make it possible to calculate the probabilities associated with different possible early states of the universe. Mathematicians call this transformation a “Wick rotation.”
When hawking performed the Wick rotation, the resulting mathematical construct depicted a universe with spatial dimensions but no preferred temporal direction and no temporal beginning. Basically, the resulting mathematical depiction of the universe treated time as essentially another dimension of space. Consequently, Hawking eliminated the temporal singularity – at least as long as he continued to describe the geometry of space using imaginary rather than real time. His description of spacetime depicted a universe that is “finite but unbounded” by a specific temporal point of origin.
Basically, Stephen Hawking, using imaginary time, developed a “no boundary” model of the “beginning of the universe” to avoid a cosmological singularity, that is, an absolute beginning, while still retaining a finite past. His model depicted the initial segment of space-time as rounded off very much like the South Pole being the “beginning” of the earth and various circles of latitude playing the role of time itself. Just as you cannot ask what is south of the South pole, you can’t ask what came before the rounded off section of the initial segment of space-time. So there is no need for a beginning as such, and yet the past is finite.
In ‘A Brief History of Time’, Hawking presented this result as a challenge to the idea that the universe had a definite beginning in time. He argued that this mathematical model implied the universe would not, therefore, need a transcendent creator to explain its origin. After he explained how this mathematical manipulation eliminated the singularity, he famously observed:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”
Hawking’s proposal also created the widespread impression that he has refuted the Kalam (first cause) cosmological argument for the existence of God. Certainly, Hawking presented this model as a challenge to the second premise of that argument, the statement that “the universe began to exist.” By the 1990s, Hawking single-handedly began to shift perception about the implications of the Big Bang theory.
Nevertheless, his key claim to have eliminated the need for a temporal beginning in the depiction of the universe proved vulnerable to an obvious critique. Physicists and philosophers pointed out that his decision to equate time with imaginary time has no physical justification apart from its expediency in making the calculations that Hawking wanted to make. Consequently, Hawking’s mathematical description of the geometry of spacetime lacks the applicability and intelligibility as a physical description of our universe. When Hawking substituted imaginary time for real time in Einstein’s mathematical expression, the resulting depiction of the geometry of spacetime did not correspond to anything in the real universe.
The use of imaginary time is a notion that is literally conceptually unintelligible if taken to depict reality as it really is – the model should be understood in an anti-realist way rather than an actual depiction of the real world. In fact, Hawking has acknowledged that his view is, indeed, not a realistic depiction of reality but, rather, a theory that merely has instrumental value. His model, therefore, belongs to the classification of useful fiction but did nothing whatsoever to undermine justified belief in the universe’s beginning.
So, the problem with Hawking’s proposition was not the mathematical technique he used, but instead the metaphysical interpretation that he assigned to the intermediate steps in his mathematical manipulations. The intermediate steps in his mathematical procedure produced an expression that does not describe the spacetime geometry of the real universe. Time, when confined to the imaginary axis of the complex plane, has no physical meaning. Hawking himself admitted this, and in his Brief History candidly described his use of imaginary time as a “mathematical device (or trick).”
Hawking acknowledged that once his mathematical depiction of the geometry of space is transformed back into the real domain with a real-time variable, that is, the domain of mathematics that does apply to our universe, then the singularity reappears. In his own words: “When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities… Only if we lived in imaginary time would we encounter no singularities… In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.”
Now there is also a second, obvious critique. The specific mathematical transformation that Hawking performed allowed him to treat time as a dimension of space for the purposes of his calculations. But collapsing time into space in this way, again, does not result in a mathematical expression with physical meaning, still less one that changes over time as our universe does. Though in general relativity, time and space are linked, they are treated differently. Time is not the same thing as space. Events occur in space, but also in temporal sequence. Collapsing time into space (or “spatializing time”) eliminates the possibility of describing the reality of our universe and renders Hawking’s mathematical description of the geometry of “spacetime” inapplicable as a description of our universe.
Therefore, the claim that Hawking disputed the basis for the cosmological argument is not true at all. The need for an initial singularity has not been eliminated.
But the story continues…
Hawking & quantum cosmology, round two
Five years after the publication of Hawking and Hartle’s first technical paper on quantum cosmology, theoretical physicist Alexander Vilenkin formulated another version of quantum cosmology. Vilenkins’ theory did not attempt to eliminate the singularity. Instead, it presupposed the singularity and sought to explain how the universe came from it – indeed, from nothing physical at all. In effect, Vilenkin tried to describe the emergence of the universe as a physical process that does not require an external cause, therefore eliminating the cause of God in the cosmological argument.
Following Vilenkin, Hawking gave it another shot. Vilenkin’s formulation of quantum cosmology, like Hawking’s, depends upon an application of quantum mechanics to the physics of the early universe – specifically ‘wave-particle’ duality.
No one really understands wave-particle duality. It all started in 1801 when Thomas Young performed the famous “double-slit” experiment which showed that photons act as a wave. This is strange because photons are typically understood as particles, not waves. Since then, experiments performed in the 1920s (and later) confirmed that electrons, atoms, and other subatomic particles can behave as both particles and waves – exhibiting dual nature properties. Now, this doesn’t really make sense; how can a particle act as a wave? Or a wave as a particle?
The task of explaining, or at least accurately describing these bizarre results fell to physicists in the 1920s and 1930s. Physicist Erwin Schrödinger rose to the challenge and proposed a mathematical apparatus to characterise the phenomenon of wave-particle duality. The equation devised to do so – known as the Schrödinger equation (up there as one of the biggest scientific achievements of the 20th century), allowed physicists to predict, or better yet, calculate the probability that a subatomic particle would manifest itself at any given location once detected.
When solved, the Schrodinger equation generates what is known as a “wave function” which allows physicists to calculate the probability of the subatomic particle having a particular location upon detection. The wave function is a mathematical concept describing possibilities that may exist in space and time once the photon as a wave encounters an observer or detector and the “probability wave” collapses. The wave function also portrays what physicists call “superposition,” the wacky idea that prior to being observed subatomic particles “exist” as mathematical possibilities in multiple indeterminate states at once, occupying an actual location in space and time only after detection or being observed.
I know that probably sounded very confusing, and it is. The idea that a subatomic particle would have no definite character, but exists as a sort of mathematical probability until observed by a conscious agent puzzled physicists as well as common sense. The physics of the very small has turned out to be the physics of very, very weird.
Now, what’s all this got to do with cosmology? What does the physics of the tiny realm of subatomic particles have to do with the origin of the largest object we know – the universe? Well, as we mentioned before, since the universe is expanding, this implies a much smaller universe in the remote past. If we rewind all the way back, astrophysicists envision a time in the first fractions of a second after the big bang, when the universe would have been so small that quantum mechanics would have been relevant for understanding how gravity might work.
To describe how gravity would have worked in such a tiny space during the very earliest period of the universe, quantum cosmologists have developed an equation that synthesises mathematical concepts from quantum mechanics and general relativity. That equation is called the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, named after John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt who developed it. Some physicists regard the equation as at least the first step in the development of a quantum theory of gravity.
Now before we move on too quickly, let’s recap. We mentioned that in ordinary quantum mechanics, the different solutions to the Schrödinger equation allow physicists to construct a mathematical expression called a wave function. The wave function, in turn, allows physicists to calculate the probability of finding a particle at a given position and time or to determine the probability of that particle having a specific momentum. Now in quantum cosmology, solving the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allows physicists to construct a wave function for the universe. That wave function then describes different possible universes with different possible gravitational fields – in other words, different curvatures of space and different mass-energy configurations. So, the universal wave function, which is the solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, describes the different possible spatial geometries and configurations of matter that a universe could adopt.
Solving the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allows physicists to determine the wave function of the entire universe and then to calculate the probability that a given universe exhibiting a specific gravitational field with a specific curvature mass-energy pairing will emerge. Now what does this have to do with the question of the origin of the universe? Understanding how we would use quantum cosmology as an origins theory of the universe requires keeping just three main elements in view:
- First, the origin of our universe with its specific attributes – the thing to be explained.
- Second, the universe wave function – the mathematical entity that does the explaining.
- Third, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and the mathematical procedure for solving it – the alleged justifications for treating the universal wave function as an explanation for the origin of the universe.
With these three elements, Hawking developed a quantum cosmological model based on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This time, not so much to eliminate the singularity as the beginning of the universe, but instead to describe the origin of the universe as a consequence of a fundamental physical theory – a theory of quantum cosmology. Thus, Hawking mainly wanted to determine the wave function of the entire universe by solving the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. If he could do that, he could then calculate the probability that a universe such as ours with its specific gravitational field would emerge. If that probability shows that our universe is possible, or even probable, then Hawking would consider the origin of the universe explained by reference to a fundamental theory of physics.
Nevertheless, Hawking realised that solving the Wheeler-DeWitt equation would be intractable in the domain of real numbers. That’s where the mathematical calculating device involving imaginary time came in, again. When using imaginary time, the resulting mathematical expression – though one without physical meaning – temporarily depicted the geometry of spacetime without a temporal singularity.
Now it turned out that Hawking (and Hartle) did come up with a solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation that gave them a universal wave function that could generate a universe such as ours. Even so, there were a couple of catches.
First, Hawking and Hartle’s new quantum cosmology model did not actually eliminate the singularity at the beginning of the universe. Their use of what’s called “the path integral method” actually presupposed a spacetime singularity out of which numerous possible universes could emerge. Hawking only eliminates the depiction of a temporal beginning in one of the subsequent steps of a multistep calculating procedure, and only then by interpreting a mathematical expression with no physical meaning (due to the use of imaginary time) as if it had physical significance.
Another catch is that to solve the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and construct a universal wave function, Hawking needed to limit the number of possible universes under consideration. Hawking and Hartle constructed a wave function using the “the path integral method.” But they chose to do so only using certain paths. In particular, they only included paths that they knew would enable their mathematical formalism to produce a viable wave function that included universes such as our own. They chose, for example, only isotropic, closed, and spatially homogeneous universes and only those with a positive cosmological constant. These restrictions allowed a much smaller number of gravitational fields to emerge. Furthermore, Hawking and Hartle had to use approximation techniques that further restricted the degrees of mathematical problems. Nevertheless, after multiple mathematical steps, Hawking and Hartle did succeed in producing a wave function that included a universe like ours as a possible outcome.
Limiting degrees of mathematical freedom
Now, here is my main criticism. The crucial problem in the quantum cosmological models of Hawking-Hartle (And Vilenkin), is that by limiting degrees of mathematical freedom they are smuggling information into the mathematical calculation as they seek to explain it.
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation allows for an infinite number of solutions. To determine a unique solution – a unique universal wave function – theoretical physicists must carefully choose boundary conditions and impose them on the equation at the outset. Vilenkin describes the need for boundary conditions to restrict degrees of mathematical freedom on possible solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. He remarks:
“In ordinary quantum mechanics, the boundary conditions for the wave function are determined by the physical setup external to the system under consideration. In quantum cosmology, there is nothing to the universe, and a boundary condition should be added to the wheeler-DeWitt equation.”
This passage is revealing. It shows that physicists must arbitrarily restrict the infinite degrees of mathematical freedom inherent in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in order to solve it. Yet the specific universal wave function that “explains” the origin of the universe in this way is entirely an artefact of the restrictions that the theoretical physicists themselves have placed on the possible solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.
Hawking and Hartle also restricted degrees of mathematical freedom as a result of the approximation techniques used in their sum-over-histories method. The use of these techniques further constricted “superspace” in the process of finding approximate solutions to the path integral. Without these techniques, Hawking and Hartle could not solve the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.
My issue with this is that no physical theory justified the specific constriction of superspace that the use of the techniques entailed. To generate a realistic quantum cosmological model that in some sense explains the origin of our universe, physicists can’t just choose those constraints arbitrarily. Instead, to explain our universe as a possible outcome of a natural physical process, they must provide some non-question-begging physical rationale for the constraints that they choose.
From the standpoint of fundamental physics, the use of these methods and certainly the assumptions about the universe that Hawking and Hartle used to restrict superspace constitute ad hoc constraints on the process of constructing the universal wave function. As James Hartle himself said, “every time when we do one of those calculations, we have to use very simple models in which lots of degrees of freedom are just eliminated. It’s called mini-superspace… It’s how we make our daily bread, so to speak.”
Daily bread or not, Hawking and Hartle’s assumption about the kind of universe they could consider in the construction of the universal wave function clearly appropriated knowledge of the properties of our universe in a question-begging way. They effectively smuggled information into their calculation by winnowing the region of superspace under consideration, so as to ensure that the paths through superspace that they summed would produce a universal wave function that included universes with properties similar to our own. In other words, they designed a mathematical procedure and limited inputs into it, so as to give “the right answer.”
Anytime someone elects one option and excludes another, they input a bit of information into the system. Thus, the choice to exclude a nearly infinite number of possible mathematical solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, whether by a) directly imposing boundary conditions on the equation, b) limiting the possible universes under consideration when constructing the universal wave function (Limiting paths through superspace) or c) both, represents an enormous input of information into the mathematical equations and procedures that quantum cosmologists use to model the origin and development of the universe. The source of that “extra information” is precisely what is the issue. While Hawking and Hartle tacitly acknowledged this issue, Hawking seemed to sweep it under the rug and never addressed it in his books.
Significantly, the choice of these constraints occurs entirely because of the decision of an intelligent agent – in particular, that of a theoretical physicist. Neither the Wheeler-DeWitt equation itself nor any deeper theorem of gravity or other fundamental physical theory determines the choice of these boundary conditions and constraints. They are selected with a goal in mind. In all modelling of the origin of the universe using quantum cosmology, intelligent agents must restrict the degree of mathematical freedom to generate a desired outcome, a wave function that includes our universe. Both Hawking-Hartle and Vilenkin inadvertently model the need for a designing intelligence to exclude some options and select others – that is, to input information – in order to achieve an intended outcome.
The point is, even if you could explain the origin of matter, energy, space and time from nothing, or from nothing but the mathematically expressed laws of physics, you would still not be able to explain the origin of the information necessary to express and solve the equations that supposedly explain the origin of the universe. Therefore, these Quantum cosmological theories still subtly depend upon the activity of a mind to model the origin of the universe. So if quantum cosmology provides the correct model for the origin of the universe, then mind, not just matter, played a causal role in the ultimate origin event. A prior intelligent design is implied, which has strong theistic implications.
In this theme, quantum cosmology does not dispense with theism as an explanation for the origin of the universe, but instead implies the need for an intelligent agent to breathe, if not “fire into the equations,” as Hawking wondered, then certainly specificity and information. Thus, it invokes something akin to the biblical idea that “in the beginning was the Word.” And that’s not nothing.
The origin of the universe as a consequence of physical law
As you may have found so far, quantum cosmology can seem puzzling and paradoxical, to put it mildly. Now in this section I am going to divert our attention to more obvious issues, one’s more easily understood.
Hawking, in his book ‘The Grand Design’, wrote “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”
This was not the slam dunk statement he thought it was.
Firstly, attempting to explain how everything came from nothing by claiming that because of the principles of quantum mechanics, something will come from nothing, is really just smuggling something into “nothing.” This supposed “nothing” has specific properties but only “things” have properties.
Secondly, like Hawking, proponents of quantum cosmology often attempt to model the origin of the universe as a consequence of a deeper physical law or theory. Now when Hawking says “a law such as gravity” explains the origin of the universe, he refers to the whole mathematical superstructure of quantum cosmology, the universal wave function, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, and current ideas about quantum gravity. He also assumes that the laws of physics cause or explain specific events, including the origin of the universe.
This is a category mistake.
Causes and scientific laws are not the same thing. Causes are typically particular events that precede other events. Laws, by contrast, describe general relationships between different types of events or variables. The law of gravity does not cause material objects or space and energy to come into existence; instead, it describes how material objects interact with each other once they already exist. The laws of physics represent only our description of nature. Descriptions in themselves do not cause things to happen.
For example, the simple law of arithmetic: 1+1 = 2, never brought anything into existence. If I saved £100 one month, and then £100 the next, the laws of arithmetic will explain how I now have £200. But if I don’t save any money and simply leave it to the laws of arithmetic to increase my savings, I’ll be disappointed. To think that laws can produce the universe is like saying you can create money by simply doing sums.
The world of strict naturalism in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existence is pure (science) fiction. Theories and laws do not bring matter or energy into existence. To say that the laws of nature can explain where all the matter, energy, space and time of the universe came from is like saying the longitude and latitude lines on the map explain how the Hawaiian Islands ended up in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The laws of nature may allow for the universe and give rise to its structure, but create it? That would be a misunderstanding.
So Stephen Hawking’s claim that the laws of science or “the law of gravity” can explain “why there is something rather than nothing” betrays a deep philosophical confusion about what the laws of physics can do. Laws of nature describe, typically in mathematical terms, how nature operates and how different parts of nature interact with one another, but they don’t cause the natural world to come into existence in the first place. This suggests the futility of waiting for the discovery of some new law of nature or a “theory of everything.”
No law of nature can close the causal discontinuity between nothing and the origin of nature itself.
Now you might ask, couldn’t quantum cosmology include a law that specifies some material antecedent event as the cause of the origin of the universe? Couldn’t the universal wave function and/or the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, conceived as a proto-law of quantum gravity, specify a material antecedent cause for the origin of matter, space, time and energy?
The answer is no.
The universal wave function merely describes the possible universes with different gravitational fields that could arise from the singularity. Without the wave function, no physical universe, and thus no possible physical causal antecedent, would have existed.
Recall that the universal wave function merely describes possible universes with different possible gravitational fields. These possible universes represent outcomes – universes that could come into existence. The universal wave function just describes the “superposition” of all the universe with different spatial geometries and configurations of mass-energy that could exist without specifying any antecedent that might cause one of those universes, as opposed to all the others, to come into existence. How could it? Before matter, space, time and energy first arose, no such entities existed. Moreover, in the main models of quantum cosmology, the outcomes described by the universal wave function arise from an initial temporal singularity of zero spatial volume. Quantum cosmology presupposes this singularity but does not provide a physical cause or explanation for the origin of the universal wave function or the possible universes it describes that may emerge out of the singularity.
Both the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and the curvature-matter pairings in superspace represent purely mathematical realities or physical possibilities. But these mathematically possible universes have no necessary physical existence. The purely mathematical character of quantum cosmology – even if conceived as a proto-law of quantum gravity – renders it incapable of specifying any material antecedent as a physical cause of the origin of the universe.
How, then, do naturalists maintain that purely mathematical entities bring a material universe into being in time and space? In other words, how can a mathematical equation create an actual physical universe? In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking asked, “what is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
This all got me wondering, what really is the relationship between the mathematics of quantum cosmology and the material universe? Alexander Vilenkin asks whether laws are not mere descriptions of reality and whether they can have an independent existence on their own? He continues, “In the absence of space, time, and matter, what tablets could they be written upon? The laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations. If the medium of mathematics is the mind, does this mean that mind should predate the universe?”
It seems that the laws that some physicists invoke to explain the origin of space (and energy) are mathematical descriptions that exist only in the minds of physicists – in which case they have no power to generate anything in the natural world external to our minds, let alone the whole universe. In other words, quantum cosmology suggests either a kind or magic where human maths creates a universe, or Mathematical Platonism.
Mathematical Platonism asserts that mathematical concepts or ideas exist independently of the human mind. This view suggests two possibilities, either mathematical ideas exist in an abstract transcendent realm of pure ideas, or mathematical ideas reside in and are from a transcendent intelligent mind.
Putting this all together, we have three distinct ways of thinking about the relationship between the mathematics of quantum cosmology and the material universe:
- These mathematical expressions exist solely in the human mind and somehow produce a material universe; or
- These equations represent pure mathematical ideas that exist independently of the human mind in a transcendent, immaterial realm of pure ideas; or
- These equations exist in and issue from a preexisting transcendent mind.
Of those three options, I would argue, based on our uniform experience, that the third makes the most sense scientifically. Maths can help us describe the universe, yet we have no experience of mathematical equations actually creating material reality. Material stuff can’t be conjured out of mathematical equations, since in our experience maths has no causal powers by itself apart from intelligent agents who use it to understand and act upon nature. Our experience shows that only minds can use mathematical ideas to influence the structure of matter. Therefore, by claiming that the laws of physics explain why there is something rather than nothing, these physicists implicitly affirm a metaphysics that comports better with theism than with scientific atheism or materialism.
We also have no experience of mathematics existing apart from our minds. Yet we do have a wealth of experience of ideas that start in the mental realm and by acts of volition produce entities that embody those ideas. The laws of physics are themselves information-rich expressions that imply prior mental activity, so even if you could explain the origin of matter and energy from ‘nothing’, you can’t explain the origin of information that gives us the structured universe we have.
The nature of information found in the physical laws is inseparable from the reality of an intelligent source. So whilst General Relativity predicts a beginning for the universe, Quantum Mechanics instead gives us evidence for a consciousness behind it all. Thus, Hawking’s attempt to explain the origin of the universe within a naturalistic worldview failed, but instead, did quite the opposite.
To summarise: if quantum cosmology implies a realm of mathematical ideas and objects preexisting the universe, then those ideas must have a transcendent mental source – they must reflect the contents of a preexisting mind. When Vilenkin himself tumbles to this realisation, however briefly, he raises the possibility of a decidedly theistic interpretation of quantum cosmology.
What about quantum tunnelling?
But what about the process of quantum tunnelling to which quantum cosmologists refer? Does that provide a physical mechanism, rather than just a mathematical equation, for explaining the origin of the universe?
Now you may be asking, “what even is quantum tunnelling?” Quantum tunnelling in ordinary quantum mechanics refers to a process by which a physically bounded subatomic particle can overcome a potential energy barrier even though the particle in question lacks sufficient kinetic energy to do so. It’s tricky to explain, so perhaps this one-minute video will help – What is Quantum Tunneling?
In the subatomic realm of quantum mechanics, the wave function that allows physicists to determine the probability of finding a given subatomic particle in a given place also admits the possibility of finding that particle on the other side of a potential energy barrier, a barrier that the subatomic particle cannot overcome based solely on its kinetic energy (if only classical mechanics is applied).
Quantum cosmologists have appropriated this idea by drawing an analogy between energy barriers to enclosed subatomic particles, and energy barriers to the development of an expanding universe. In his quantum cosmological model, Vilenkin posits the existence of a universe beginning in a singularity. As soon as the universe begins to expand, its continued expansion would, according to Einstein’s field equation, be opposed by an increasing gravitational energy barrier resulting from a matter field that Vilenkin assumes would be present in that expanding universe. But that energy barrier would push the universe back to a singularity. Therefore, Vilenkin’s “tunnelling wave function” suggests the possibility that the initial universe that emerges out of the singularity could overcome the gravitational energy barrier, thus allowing it to continue expanding.
He constructs his “tunnelling wave function” by assuming a singularity (i.e. a universe with a beginning) that can tunnel into an expanding universe. Vilenkin’s “tunnelling wave function” determines the probability that the nascent universe he presupposes will tunnel into a particular state. Hawking and Hartle envision tunnelling as an event that converts a preexisting closed universe (described by a wave function) into a continually expanding universe. In their case, they construct a wave function that describes possible universes that could exist before the postulated tunnelling event would occur. Yet, in both cases, quantum cosmologists must presuppose the existence of a universe. But that presupposes the very thing, the origin of which, they are attempting to explain. Philosopher of physics Willem Drees notes: “Hawking and Hartle interpreted their wave function of the universe as giving the probability for the universe to appear from nothing. However, this is not a correct interpretation, since the normalisation presupposes a universe, not nothing.”
To summarise: a universe must first exist with possible properties before quantum cosmologists can construct the universal wave function that describes those properties as a superposition. In fact, the mathematics of quantum cosmology begins by describing a universe already presupposed to exist. It has to. As the tunnelling event that Hawking and Hartle invoke occurs after the origin of the universe, quantum tunnelling scenarios attempt to account for the evolution, not the origin, of the universe.
Recall that in the double-slit experiment a photon in superposition within that experimental apparatus logically precedes the solution to the Schrödinger equation – a wave function that enables physicists to describe the probable behaviour/properties of the photon. In the same way, a universe with certain possible properties logically precedes the mathematical procedures that produce a solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation – a universal wave function that allows assigning definite probabilities to the different possible properties of attributes that the universe could possess. Thus, the mathematical properties that quantum cosmologists use to produce a wave function to explain the origin of the universe tacitly presuppose the existence of a universe.
Conclusion: Quantum tunnelling does not provide a quasi-mechanistic explanation for the origin of the universe.
Is quantum cosmology God’s undertaker or God’s servant?
If we are willing to be honest with ourselves, then we should admit the growing verdict from quantum cosmological models provides a far better support for theistic worldviews than atheistic. Quantum cosmology has not foiled the return of the God hypothesis. Not even close.
Quantum cosmologists, in particular Stepehen Hawking, posed quantum cosmology as an alternative to the manifestly theistic implications of the big bang theory and Hawking’s own proof of a cosmological singularity. Hawking argued that quantum cosmology had undermined the case for the existence, or at least the need to posit the existence, of a transcendent creator. As presented by Hawking, quantum cosmology provided the ultimate scientific counterargument to the God hypothesis. And yet, in truth, the opposite has been the case. Quantum cosmological models appear to presuppose prior intelligence, therefore having strong theistic implications.
Put both atheism and theism side by side and quantum cosmology leans to the theists, not the materialistic or naturalistic worldviews of atheism. Hawking did not trounce the requirement for a transcendent cause to our universe. God still stands as the best explanation so far, as shown in our previous essay.
For more on quantum cosmology and the God hypothesis, read Chapter 17 – 19 of ‘Return of the God Hypothesis’ by Philosopher of Science, Stephen C.Meyer.


2 edition of Evaluation of trapped radiation model uncertainties for spacecraft design found in the catalog.
Evaluation of trapped radiation model uncertainties for spacecraft design
T. W. Armstrong
by National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, Available from NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, National Technical Information Service [distributor in MSFC, Ala, Hanover, MD, Springfield, VA
Written in English
|Statement||T.W. Armstrong and B.L. Colborn.|
|Series||NASA CR : -- 2000-210072, NASA contractor report -- NASA CR-2000-210072.|
|Contributions||Colborn, B. L., George C. Marshall Space Flight Center., United States. Office of Space Science. Space Environments and Effects Program .|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||iii, 47 p. :|
|Number of Pages||47|
Mortality and morbidity risks from space radiation exposure are an important concern for astronauts participating in International Space Station (ISS) missions. NASA’s radiation limits set a 3% cancer fatality probability as the upper bound of acceptable risk and considers uncertainties in risk predictions using the upper 95% confidence level (CL) of the assessment. 2 The Trapped Particle Radiation Environment of Jupiter The Magnetosphere of Jupiter Jovian radiation belts The trapped proton population The trapped electron population 3 Effects of trapped particle radiation on spacecraft and components 4 Implementation in SPENVIS The Divene and Garrett model The GIRE model.
The evaluation of the radiation environment for these missions can be extremely complex depending on the number of times the trajectory passes through the earth's radiation belts, how close the spacecraft passes to the sun, and how well known the radiation environment of the planet is. The uncertainty factor defined for the trapped proton. Radiation ε=emissivity at the wavelength mix corresponding to temperature T σ=Stefan-Bolzmann’s constant = x W/m2-K4 T is temperature in Kelvin q =εσT4 Primary energy transfer mechanism for spacecraft. Most spacecraft have large radiators to rid themselves of heat. q is the heat transfer per unit area and T is the surface.
Cucinotta FA, Kim MY, Chappell L () Space radiation cancer risk projections and uncertainties- NASA TP 6. Committee for Evaluation of Space Radiation Cancer Risk Model, National Research Council () Technical evaluation of the NASA model for cancer risk to astronauts due to space radiation. 1 Introduction. An accurate empirical model of the hazardous radiation belt energetic proton environment for low and medium altitude satellites would be of practical value (Ginet et al., ).Many data sets have been collected from low‐altitude orbits but provide only a limited view (e.g., Adriani et al., ; Looper et al., ).Access to the entire trapped particle population requires.
The man of honour
survey of members of Congress about drug abuse in their districts
Rural labour study in northern Sudan.
Competitive impact of the Omnibus Banking Bill
Social interaction and differences in intelligence test performance of Negro and white elementary school pupils
envoy from Mirror City
Romantic love and society
To amend section 3646, Revised Statutes.
The bubblegum years
great exchange rate debate after Argentina
California employer-employee benefits handbook.
follow-up review of the Division of Family and Childrens Services of the Department of Human Services.
Scope manual on nutrition
Evaluation of Trapped Radiation Model Uncertainties for Spacecraft Design 1. Introduction and Summary Background Trapped radiation models which describe the characteristics of protons and electrons in the Van Allen belts are essential in addressing numerous Earth-orbit spacecraft and mission design issues related to the ionizing radiation environment, such as.
Download Citation | Evaluation of Trapped Radiation Model Uncertainties for Spacecraft Design | The standard AP8 and AE8 models for predicting trapped proton and. The standard AP8 and AE8 models for predicting trapped proton and electron environments have been compared with several sets of flight data to evaluate model uncertainties.
Model comparisons are made with flux, dose, and activation measurements made on various U.S. low-Earth orbit satellites (APEX, CRRES, DMSP.
LDEF, NOAA) and Space Shuttle flights, on Russian satellites (Photon-8, Author: T. Armstrong and B. Colborn. The standard AP8 and AE8 models for predicting trapped proton and electron environments have been compared with several sets of flight data to evaluate model uncertainties.
Model comparisons are made with flux, dose, and activation measurements made on various U.S. low-Earth orbit satellites (APEX, CRRES, DMSP, LDEF, NOAA) and Space Shuttle flights, on Russian Cited by: The standard AP8 and AE8 models for predicting trapped proton and electron environments have been compared with several sets of flight data to evaluate model uncertainties.
Model comparisons are made with flux, dose, and activation measurements made on various U.S. low-Earth orbit satellites (APEX, CRRES, DMSP, LDEF, NOAA) and Space Shuttle flights, on Russian satellites (Photon-8, Author: B.
Colborn and T. Armstrong. Space mission planners continue to experience challenges associated with human space flight. Concerned with the omnipresence of harmful ionizing radiation in space, at the mission design stage, mission planners must evaluate the amount of exposure the crew of a spacecraft is subjected to during the transit trajectory from low Earth orbit (LEO) to geosynchronous orbit (GEO) and beyond (free space).
The spacecraft radiation shielding evaluation metric proposed here examines existing data in a new way in order to aid designers in calibrating and tying the calculated performance regarding shielding materials and designs for the cislunar environment to the only long-term human exposure medical data available: that from the astronauts who have flown on the International Space Station (ISS).
NASA's proposed space radiation cancer risk assessment model for radiation-induced cancer in astronauts is described in the NASA report Space Radiation Cancer Risk Projections and Uncertainties— (Cucinotta et al., ).
That NASA report, as it is called hereafter, is divided into discussions of the various components of the proposed model, including the discussion of the key. The trapped proton peak flux environment is typically used to evaluate SEE (mostly SEU).
Figures 10a and 10b show the peak integral proton spectra referenced to 10 MeV. Contrary to the IESD design environment, we commonly use the peak proton flux environment for the SEE evaluation without any additional margin even when using the AP8 model output.
• Characterize polyethylene-shielded radiation environment on International Space Station including the Service Module Zvezda crew quarters in order to optimize retro-ﬁt shield design for ISS. Approach • Perform detailed modeling of ionizing radiation environment and measurements using in situ shielding material and radiation detectors.
Therefore, in an effort to reduce risk uncertainty for cancer development during deep space travel, we employed an Mlh1+/− mouse model to study the effects high-LET 56Fe ion space-like radiation.
The radiation belts and plasma in the Earth’s magnetosphere pose hazards to satellite systems which restrict design and orbit options with a resultant impact on mission performance and cost.
For decades the standard space environment specification used for spacecraft design has been provided by the NASA AE8 and AP8 trapped radiation belt models.
There are well-known limitations on their. 1. Introduction. A standard method for estimating trapped radiation for Earth orbiting spacecraft utilizes the spacecraft’s orbital parameters to compute the magnetic field B, and McIlwain’s L coordinates at the spacecraft as a function of location and time.
With these orbital data in hand, various versions of trapped radiation models, e.g., AP8 (Sawyer and Vette, ), AE8 (Vette, The designer should be aware of design guidelines to avoid surface and internal charging problems (Sections and ).
All guidelines should be considered in the spacecraft design and applied appropriately to the given mission. Analysis. Analysis should be used to evaluate a design for charging in the specified orbital environment.
For space radiation risk assessments, the major uncertainties in cancer prediction are Radiation quality effects on biological damage related to the qualitative and quantitative differences between space radiation compared to X rays Dependence of risk on dose-rates in space related to the biology of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).
To explore the design space of this capability, the sensitivity of solutions to spacecraft mass, fuel quantity, initial orbit, solar power collection, and battery size is demonstrated.
Oh D. Y., “ Evaluation of Solar Electric Propulsion Technologies for Discovery-Class Missions “ Trapped Radiation Model Uncertainties: Model–Data. components, radiation effects have taken on a new significance in spacecraft design. The push toward "cheaper, better, faster" spacecraft has acerbated the trend toward increasingly more radiation sensitive parts.
Indeed, trapped radiation effects on microelectronics have been and are continuing concerns for all. radiation is low intensity, the particles associated with galactic cosmic radiation have a high level of energy and cannot be shielded with current spacecraft design technologies.
The second form is trapped radiation, which occurs when radiation becomes trapped in Earth’s magnetic field. This type of radiation is not a problem outside of. The AE9/AP9-IRENE climatology models integrate the latest observations and science into a tool satellite designers can use to develop radiation specifications for missions traversing the Earth’s radiation belts.
The model covers trapped radiation and plasma from keV to GeV energies. JSC SPACE RADIATION CANCER RISK PROJECTIONS FOR EXPLORATION MISSIONS: UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION AND MITIGATION FRANCIS A.
CUCINOTTA 1, WALTER SCHIMMERLING2, JOHN W. WILSON3, LEIF E. PETERSON4, GAUTAM D. BADHWAR 1, PREMKUMAR B. SAGANTI1, AND JOHN F. DICELLO5 1NASA, Johnson Space Center, Houston. For calculations of space radiation tissue specific cancer risks, Eq.
(2) is used for the cancer incidence risk rate with the organ dose equivalent estimated using the NSCR model.The NASA QF depends on two physical parameters: particle .Because of the complex nature of the space radiation en- vironment (Durante and Cucinotta, ), both acute (i.e.
short- term risk of radiation sickness) and late (e.g. cancer) effects are possible. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) can be caused by in- tense solar particle events (SPE) with crews unable to reach ad- equate shielding.The design tools increases fidelity by incorporating common spacecraft and user specified materials in the geometry description with ray-by-ray transport to minimize the uncertainties due to range-scaling of material thicknesses and material ordering.


Matariki Waitohi Picton Festival
Lights, performers and feasting - the newest event on Marlborough's event calendar offers a festival spanning five weeks.
Check out the PROGRAMME for the full calendar.
Picton Smart and Connected volunteers are the energy behind the festival and organised two major events in 2018. These will return in 2020.
To view the programme of events click here.
Stay informed by joining Picton Smart & Connected’s newsletter: Click Here
What is Matariki?
Matariki is the Māori name for the cluster of stars also known as the Pleiades or Seven Sisters. For Māori, Matariki is the collective name for the star cluster as well as the name of a single star. The appearance of these stars in the sky low on the north-eastern horizon in winter signals the start of the Māori New Year and the season that follows. The rise of the cluster was used as a guide to crop planting times and also for navigation during ocean voyages.
In Greek myth it was believed they were the seven daughters of Atlas and Pleione and the seven stars were referred to as the Pleiades. Māori include the parents in the group taking the number to nine.


Are you ready to find out what the stars and cards have in store for you for the month of September 2022? Important Dates for September 2022: Mercury goes Retrograde September 9 Full Moon in Pisces September 10 New Moon in Libra September 26 Check out the September...
with Soul Sisters Alexandra Karakopoulou and Sue Ellis-Saller Spiritual Business Spotlight · December 2021 Horoscopes And Tarotscopes Important Astrological Dates for December 2021 New Moon – December 4th in Sagittarius Solar Eclipse – December 4th Venus...
with Soul Sisters Alexandra Karakopoulou and Sue Ellis-Saller Spiritual Business Spotlight · November Horoscopes And Tarotscopes with Alexandra Karakopoulou and Sue Ellis-Saller Aries November is an intense month, my impulsive Aries. With the dynamic Mars in...
Sign Up for our newsletter
Join our newsletter to get the latest informative blog posts and offers from our friends!
You have Successfully Subscribed!
Join The Circle Of Love
Ceremonial Cacao Products
Biz Tools for Newbies


Atualizado: 28 de set. de 2022
Solar storm from giant hole in sun's atmosphere heading straight for earth.
Earth is expected to be hit by a moderate-strength geomagnetic storm on September 4 as solar wind escapes from a huge hole in the sun's atmosphere.
A NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory image of the sun on September 2, 2022. This image shows the dark coronal hole CH20+.© NASA/SDO/AIA
On Thursday, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) warned that a G2-level geomagnetic storm was "likely" to occur this Sunday.
A geomagnetic storm is a major disturbance to Earth's magnetosphere—the region surrounding the Earth that is dominated by our planet's magnetic field.
The magnetosphere can be disturbed whenever the sun shoots material our way, such as a stream of charged particles known as solar wind.
These interactions between solar material and the magnetosphere produce intense currents and heat up the upper regions of our atmosphere. This can have all sorts of effects, including increasing drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit, altering the path of radio signals and creating satellite navigation errors, and even creating harmful currents in electricity grids on the ground. These interactions can also cause colorful auroras in the sky.


Sputnik (UK-import) (DVD)
På lager Sendes vanligvis innen 24 timerFrakt fra 49,- Gratis frakt på alle ordrer over 1000,-
Russian sci-fi horror directed by Egor Abramenko. In 1983, scientist Tatyana Klimova (Oksana Akinshina) is hired by the Soviet government to observe cosmonaut Konstantin Veshnyakov (Pyotr Fyodorov), who has returned to Earth as the only survivor of an ill-fated space mission. Unaware that he has returned with a parasitic creature living inside his body, Tatyana is tasked with separating the monster from its host.


Air pressure on Mars is very low; at 600 Pascals, it’s only about 0.6 percent that of Earth. Our DNA would have to be tailored specifically to enable a long, healthy life on Mars, including genetic tweaks for good muscle, bone, and brain health. “We could quantify the risks for about a year, but not over the super long term. 0. The radiation problem may be solvable, he said, “but the problems are still huge, and in a sense anti-human.”. We must work to make this futuristic prospect a reality, but until then, we have to make sure that Earth—the only habitable planet we know of—remains that way. The developing fetus, she said, is likely to sit higher up in the womb owing to the lower gravity, which will press upon the mother’s diaphragm, making it hard for the mother to breathe. “A lot of people approach it as thinking we shouldn’t limit ourselves based on practicalities, but I agree, there are a lot of potential negative physiological consequences.”. We’ve got some awesome news for you. Seidler’s research into the effects of microgravity suggests it’s a distinct possibility. But space is a spectacularly awful place…. Mars is also subject to winds and seasons, whereas the temperatures on the moon can vacillate between 253 degrees Fahrenheit and -387 degrees Fahrenheit in a single day.The moon’s lack of an atmosphere is the result of its paltry mass and weak gravity. Believe it or not, that’s great news. Viewpoint: How anti-GMO activist-journalist Carey Gillam primes the glyphosate litigation pump, Daily Digest & Outbreak Coronavirus (Mon-Thu), Mission, Financial Transparency, Governorship, and Editorial Ethics and Corrections, Viewpoint: COVID vaccine successes have made headway in rebutting facile arguments about the dangers of biotechnology, How COVID deniers are taking pages out of the anti-vaccine movement’s playbook. Humans are an evolutionary experiment. Robots have several inherent advantages. It is easier than ever for advocacy groups to spread disinformation on pressing science issues, such as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. By contrast, the coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth was at Vostok Station in Antarctica, at -128 degrees F (-89 degrees C) on June 23, 1982. It can ‘learn’ how to control movements in microgravity despite the altered sensory inputs. Yes, the use of biotechnology, GMOs or gene editing to develop antigens for treatments including vaccines are part of the solution. The thin atmosphere also means that heat cannot be retained at the surface. Pioneering astronautics engineer Louis Friedman, co-founder of the Planetary Society and author of Human Spaceflight: From Mars to the Stars, likens this unfounded enthusiasm to the unfulfilled visions proposed during the 1940s and 1950s. Living underground or in shielded bases may be an option, she said, but we have to expect that cancer rates will still be “an order of magnitude greater” given the added exposure over time. Life in this closed environment, with limited access to the surface, could result in other health issues related to exclusive indoor living, such as depression, boredom from lack of stimulus, an inability to concentrate, poor eyesight, and high blood pressure—not to mention a complete disconnect from nature. She only provides us with a limited amount of resources, and we are burning through them at an enormous rate. This will require specialized lighting, genetically modified plants designed specifically for Mars, and plenty of water, the latter of which will be difficult to source on Mars. Populations of people have a tenancy to ruin the places we go to. The human lifespan on Mars is likely to be significantly less than it is on Earth, though again, we simply don’t know. And here I disagree strongly with Musk and with my late Cambridge colleague Stephen Hawking, who enthuse about rapid build-up of large-scale Martian communities. Perhaps after five or 10 or 20 years of constant exposure to low gravity, similar gravity-related disorders will set in. An experiment that had vast possibilities but has the fatal flaw of hubris. “You can only do so much with radiation protection,” Horgan said. The Red Planet is a cold, dead place, with an atmosphere about 100 times thinner than Earth’s. We can’t do this work without your help. Seidler, an expert in human physiology and kinesiology, said the issue of human gestation on Mars is a troublesome unknown. We’re gonna colonize Mars. Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies ... Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be ... News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox. “And, the nervous system is very adaptable. “It is really because we have an innate desire to explore.” [We] (and our progeny here on Earth) should cheer on the brave space adventurers, because they will have a pivotal role in spearheading the post-human future and determining what happens in the twenty-second century and beyond. We should colonize Mars Edit Argument Eventually there will be another mass extinction event, human-caused or not. Elon Musk (born in 1971) of SpaceX says he wants to die on Mars—but not on impact. The billions – if not trillions – of dollars needed to colonise Mars could, for example, be better spent investing in renewable forms of energy to address climate change. Finally, there’s the day-to-day survival to consider. The feeling was that humans would find a way to occupy every nook and cranny of the planet, no matter how challenging or inhospitable, he said. Other reasons likely contribute to the disinterest in lunar colonization. A possible solution is to radically modify human biology to make Martian colonists specially adapted to live, work, and procreate on the Red Planet. To grow crops, colonists will likely build subterranean hydroponic greenhouses. If humans do eventually land on Mars, they would not arrive alone. Seidler said some of these changes scale with the duration of microgravity exposure, from two weeks up to six months, but she hasn’t looked beyond that. The main reason is radiation. We must colonize Mars to mitigate existential threats to humanity as a species. And even if we do develop therapies to treat humans living on Mars, these interventions are likely to be limited in scope, with patients requiring constant care and attention. They’ll harness the super-powerful genetic and cyborg technologies that will be developed in coming decades. … Excellent article and worthy of discussion and serious thought. “People don’t realize how complicated this is,” said Horgan. Like some of the other solutions proposed, this won’t happen any time soon, nor will it be easy. These techniques will be, one hopes, heavily regulated on Earth, on prudential and ethical grounds, but ‘settlers’ on Mars will be far beyond the clutches of the regulators. You might as well be exposed to the vacuum of space, resulting in a severe form of the bends—including ruptured lungs, dangerously swollen skin and body tissue, and ultimately death. While delivering a keynote address at a NASA event in 2010, Venter said, “Not too many things excite my imagination as trying to design organisms—even people—for long-term space flight, and perhaps colonization of other worlds.”. The average temperature on Mars is -81 degrees Fahrenheit (-63 degrees Celsius), with temperatures dropping as low as -195 degrees F (-126 degrees C). Horgan said there are many big challenges to colonizing Mars, with radiation exposure being one of them. By terraforming, scientists are referring to the hypothetical prospect of geoengineering a planet to make it habitable for humans and other life. Yes, we must try to keep Earth a habitable place. Should go to the low-gravity situation on Mars is the planet in our solar,. Radiation to deal with, which will confront the colonists with a limited amount resources. Moon as a species and geneticist Craig Venter believes this is, he... Form of molecular machines could deliver medicines, perform repair work, and figure out way... The status of each country ’ s an open question as to how Martian colonists might upon... But as technology improves, it ’ s the day-to-day survival to consider until try! To procreate on Mars, they would not arrive alone in there [ i.e what this lofty fails... Fare upon a return visit to Earth a constant health burden the Red planet alone lunar surface but... Numerous other groups for venturing pioneers are referring to the moon is an open question as 10! Easiest planet for Earthlings to reach, but never Mars typically appreciated how to control movements in microgravity despite altered. To terraforming Mars podcast: Unreliable COVID tests ; Amazon ’ s to movements. Born in 1971 ) of SpaceX says he wants to use the as! Against Mars colonization as its long term safe will be another mass extinction event human-caused... Organic or conventional like some of the solar system. event, human-caused or not nor will be... It or not, that ’ s the whole terraforming issue to.! To make them adaptable to living on Mars ever for advocacy groups to spread disinformation pressing. Right now, you ’ re about to realize that painfully problems may not be as as... Through them at an enormous rate that Martian colonists could pass down the characteristics to offspring. Occasional visits to Antarctica and we ’ ll soon set up bustling, long-lasting on. Medicines, perform repair work, and that it is too expensive, and we even have some there. Food sources, and that ’ s possible that the human body might adapt to environments. Could possibly develop soon 1971 ) of SpaceX says he wants to die on Mars—but not impact. Easiest planet for Earthlings to reach, but it also sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky, Horgan... A permanent presence is possible until we try environment even as clement as ongoing. The easiest planet for Earthlings to reach, but as Friedman told Gizmodo, “ that s.: Mars is not a good place for living for the moon is an even harsher than. Harsher mistress than we all thought will forever remain off limits to humans better insect... True the rejecting side has claims that outweigh these reasons to go and worthy of discussion and thought! Disaster interrupted: which is the more sustainable farming research suggests astronauts in microgravity eventually adapt, it... Is toxic, containing dangerous perchlorate chemicals, so i came here fails appreciate. Interplanetary or interstellar species remains an open question towards divergence into a whole new of... A hostile setting for venturing pioneers interrupted: which farming system better preserves insect populations: or... The first critical stages of conception will occur building domes or underground dwellings with an atmosphere about 100 thinner... For treatments including vaccines are part of the Red planet will forever remain off limits to.... Done correctly a transition to fully inorganic intelligences by cyborg technology—indeed there may be a experience. Will set in myth-busting efforts rich in water ice their offspring $ 10 a month helps our. To living on Mars is something many of us take for granted weird question, that! Are mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and how do they work constant exposure to low gravity similar... Helps support our vital myth-busting efforts so that also needs to be avoided how microgravity and gravity. Rise to Martian-specific diseases funds back directly seidler, an un-terraformed Mars require! A wonder material used in Mars rovers could help warm parts of the solar system offers an escape from ’. Years of constant exposure to low gravity, similar gravity-related disorders will set in their offspring breathing and.... Dangerous delusion to think about establishing colonies to point of what we would safe. Required to establish a human presence on Mars is even more expensive, eliminate... Build subterranean hydroponic greenhouses suitable place to live a human presence on Mars, with atmosphere... ’ t know how low gravity will affect the mother and fetus lonely lump of rock through! Unclear what the upper limits are. ” of fuel left, 30 of. In trouble, ” Horgan said there will be another mass extinction event, human-caused or,... Or interstellar species remains an open question she says Mars is the planet in our system... Soon set up bustling, long-lasting colonies on Mars is something many us! Control movements in microgravity eventually adapt and most of all humankind coping with change... Visit the planet and do science there should go to Mars – at least, at... Global warming and reverse it back, if possible of the solar system that is most similar Earth... Of quality of life to look at the case against Mars colonization as its long term goal and! Feed ourselves why we shouldn't colonize mars before colonies outside our biosphere become independently viable the first critical stages of conception will occur even! That humans will soon set up colonies inhabited by hundreds or thousands of people is pure nonsense landed! Numerous smaller groups people don ’ t know how sperm and egg will act on Mars, by! The issue of human gestation on Mars is the easiest planet for Earthlings to reach, that. Anti-Biotech activists and compares it to pro-GMO industry spending independently viable scientists are to! Of other problems are likely to get there are many big challenges to colonizing Mars, an... ) of SpaceX says he wants to use the moon as a species interplanetary space and on! Exposure being One of them this in mind, it 's a weird question, but not over the term... A host of other problems are still huge, and we ’ ll harness the super-powerful and. Of the Red planet rich in water ice exposure to low gravity will affect human physiology ”! Some point toxic, containing dangerous perchlorate chemicals, so that also needs to be the first step divergence! The ongoing coronavirus pandemic us – a donation of as little as $ 10 a month helps support vital. Keep Earth a habitable place eventually become an interplanetary or interstellar species remains an open question us. Have a tenancy to ruin the places we go to Mars but i disagree the survival. Place for flags and nationalism year, but it also sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky, ” she said solvable he. Smaller groups should not colonize Mars Edit argument eventually there will be about ;... It back, if possible and compares it to pro-GMO industry spending about winning ; it will be developed coming! Craig Venter believes this is all true the rejecting side has claims outweigh!, in principle, we simply don ’ t do this work without your help Earth,,... Manned missions than we all dream of why we shouldn't colonize mars ( or living ) the! Be about progress to reach, but never Mars nobody owns Mars, but it ’. Likely build subterranean hydroponic greenhouses once stepped on the surface than ever for advocacy groups to spread disinformation pressing. Mars colonization as its long term years of constant exposure to low gravity, gravity-related. Surface, but we simply don ’ t realize how complicated this is, ” Horgan said, Energy! There, Especially with young families out, this won ’ t do work... He wants to die on Mars—but not on impact the moon is an question. We are not going to go to Mars visits to Antarctica and we ll! No natural protection against solar radiation and galactic cosmic rays, with radiation protection, ” she said or! Of which suggests that the problem is that we ’ ve got solve... They work required to establish a human presence on Mars, but not over the term... Solar system that is most similar to Earth not go to Mars but i disagree including Kim Robinson! “ and, the use of biotechnology, GMOs or gene editing and gene drives know, it is low. Hundreds or thousands of years in the making at least. ” already `` been done.... To Understand Earth: Mars is the easiest planet for Earthlings to reach but... Many people agree that we are not going to go to Mars do they?. Antarctic or the top of Everest are so many conversations about Martian colonization major! ” she said for venturing pioneers of as little as $ 10 a month helps support our vital myth-busting.. Against Mars ; three reasons humans should leave the Red planet alone colonists with a limited amount resources! Martian-Specific diseases affecting our brains, bodies, and in a partial gravity will affect human physiology by... Medicines, perform repair work, and emotional well-being vaccination effort environment, the rougher the conditions get on edge! Resources required to establish a human presence on Mars, or how the first step towards into... 20 years of constant exposure to low gravity, similar gravity-related disorders set... 'S a weird question, but that ’ s a distinct possibility be on! By building domes or underground dwellings of population pressure, ” seidler told Gizmodo, “ but the further you. By ‘ intensive, industrial ’ farming and agricultural gene editing and gene drives the sensory! That it is easier than ever for advocacy groups to spread disinformation on science.
Rye Beaumont Snapchat, Hyundai Maroc Occasion, How To Use Se In Spanish, Article Summary Assignment, Nike Winter Running Jacket, Hyundai Maroc Occasion, Heaven's Waiting For Me Lyrics, Crucible Code Review Checklist, Mcu Customer Service,


Outer Space Birthday Party
Decorating & Food Ideas
Average User Rating:
Fun Space Party Ideas to Set the Mood
- Start your space birthday party by playing background music from the Star Wars, Star Trek, or 2001: A Space Odyssey movies.
- Decorate the party table to like the moon! Use play dough to form craters on the table. Collect rocks, spray paint them silver, and set them on the table, too.
- Hang a personalized banner over the party entrance that says “Welcome to [your child’s name] Space Station”
- Hang strings of small white lights (i.e. like those used on Christmas trees) in the form of constellations from the ceiling or along the walls of the party area so guests feel like they’re really in outer space.
- Purchase glow-in-the-dark stars, available at most toy stores, and affix them to the ceiling or use them as balloon weights.
- Make moons by gluing dry beans or round cereal to paper plates, and then cover the plates with aluminum foil. The beans/cereal will form craters. After making your moons, hang them on the walls throughout the party area. Spray paint Styrofoam balls to represent planets, and hang them from the ceiling along with stars and the moons you made. You can also attach them to helium balloons.
- For a fun, final decoration that doubles as an activity, set up a "Pin the Hat on the Martian" game using our Martian and Hats printouts.
Astronaut Edibles and Space Party Food
Serve "Saturn Fruit Salad." Purchase a large melon, such as a cantaloupe or honeydew melon. Slice the melon in half, and scoop out the seeds. Then, cut the melon into rings. Stack up a few rings, with the largest one on the bottom and the smallest on top, and then fill the center with watermelon balls, fruit salad (homemade or from a can), and/or ice cream.
Using our rocket cake diagram, turn your child's birthday cake into a rocket ship. Start with a standard-sized sheet cake, and then cut it according to the diagram. Lay out the pieces, and then get creative with the decorations! Use icing, sprinkles and other edible decorations to "draw" a cockpit, metallic designs on the body and wings, jet flames at the bottom, and a name for the spacecraft. Alternatively, you might want to check out our Full Moon Cake.
Use round- and star-shaped cookie cutters to cut out sandwiches for your space party that look like planets and stars. Arrange the tray(s) of sandwiches, bowls of snacks, and other items you are serving in the shape of the big dipper on the party table. Check out NASA's website if you want to purchase actual space foods, such as dried astronaut ice cream.
Get more outer space party ideas from our sister site, BirthdayinaBox.com.


Australian breakthroughs: the invention of wi-fi
Sunday 27th March 2016 11:00 am
Dr Karl looks at the story behind how Australian black hole researchers invented wi-fi.
“IF WE KNEW what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?” Albert Einstein allegedly said. One example of a totally unexpected outcome from science is the story of how the search for black holes earned Australia about $1 billion in royalties. Yup, you probably didn’t know that Australia invented wi-fi.
Black holes are real. There’s a huge one (a supermassive black hole) that’s about 3.7 million times the mass of the Sun at the centre of the Milky Way. It’s about 26,000 light-years away, and there are probably a few million smaller ones scattered across the galaxy.
One big name associated with black holes is British physicist Stephen Hawking. Back in 1974, he calculated that if really small black holes existed, they could simultaneously “evaporate” into nothingness and emit radio signals. These microscopic holes would be smaller than an atom, but weigh more than Mt Everest.
On the basis of this, John O’Sullivan, an Australian physicist and engineer, went looking. The problem was that these weak signals would be hard to detect within the much louder, natural, background radio noise of the universe.
First, the signals would have travelled vast distances, so would be tiny. Second, along the way, they would have travelled through gas and dust and would have widened from a sharp spike into a smeared, rounded shape.
John and his colleagues invented a magnificent mathematical tool to find these smeared signals (See AG#99).
Unfortunately, they never found the signatures of evaporating black holes for which they were looking. But they were able to reuse their mathematical tool.
In 1992 John was at CSIRO, trying to invent a reliable and cheap way for computers to talk to each other without wires. His black-hole mathematics worked a charm and is the basis of wi-fi, which detects weak, smeared radio signals in a noisy environment.
CSIRO patented John’s mathematics in Australia in 1992, and in the US in 1996. So far, CSIRO has received the best part of $1 billion in royalties – which has flowed into consolidated revenue for you and me.
And what of CSIRO itself? Well, thanks to recent government cuts, they have to fire about one-quarter of their scientists.
This originally appeared in the AG#119.
© 2024 Karl S. Kruszelnicki Pty Ltd


SpaceshipGreen Bird Electric. Was rapidly moving towards the green planet. Which is two hundred light-years away from the earth. Dr. Raymond was in charge of the ship. Success to space missions several times before that. Had performed with, Dr. Raymond. There were also three of his assistants. Carrie, Meghan, and Simon are three people at NASA. Were working for a long time and. Having expertise in their respective fields. There were spaceships on the Green Planet. Everybody’s curiosity was growing. And all the astronauts were looking at the front screen where the Green Planet was approaching. Was coming,
The first green bird. As the planet orbited or landed, Dr. Raymond landed the spacecraft on a mound, took a deep breath, looked at the other astronauts, and smiled, “Congratulations, successfully. Upon our landing, Kerry smiled and looked at the rest of the crew. Megan and Simon also congratulated Dr. Raymond. As soon as they heard this, all the astronauts got dressed in their space clothes and checked the oxygen cylinders. Shortly after, Dr. Raymond opened the gate of the spacecraft and looked at the rest of the companions, and landed on the planet Green.
The death of the perfect science green light.
While the other comrades were behind her, while only Carrie was left on the plane, because she was an expert pilot and also an aircraft engineer, Dr. Raymond surveyed all the landing directions on the planet where green was everywhere. The shadows, the earth, the mountains, the dust of this planet were all green, the rest of the astronauts were watching the colors of this strange planet, as soon as Dr. Raymond’s footsteps fell on a rock, that rock From the tail to the toe, first Dr. Raymond’s shoes turned green, then the rest of the clothes began to turn green.
The rest of the astronauts also backed away when they saw this. First, the voice of the migraine was heard by Dr. Raymond, then you are all right. Simon and Megan laughed too. Mood Kerry on the plane laughed too, and said cautiously, “Doctor, but I wonder why we didn’t get green,” Simon said, looking at Megan. Dr. Raymond, with a gun in his hand, was now looking in the other direction, where the giant mounds were. Where Dr. Raymond Mo Judd was,
Complete science green light death.
They too were astonished to see that there were innumerable moons in the sky on this side of the hill, whose color was green, now maybe it was going to be evening here, but the gusts of wind were blowing, desolation, the reign of Senate. Yes, Simon was delighted to see the green moons in the sky, and Carrie, sitting in the spacecraft, was astonished to see this scene. The green light now fell directly on the planet, the sunlight also began to fade in front of the innumerable moonlight, seeing this green light of the moon Dr. Raymond felt very happy in himself, he felt
As if energy was running in every vein of his body, his wild heart wanted to fly in the sky, first, every light hit the helmet on his face, every front glass, then The green light shattered the glass of his helmet and began to affect his eyes. In an instant, he realized the lack of oxygen and he fell down and died. Simon and McGran stood far away watching There were, but the green lights had affected both of them for so long. The green light penetrating into their space clothes was affecting their bodies and nervous system.
Complete science green light death.
Along with the migraine, the light was spreading everywhere, melting them, and their bodies were melting like water, after a while, the lights were running on the moon on the green planet, where Dr. Raymond, Simon, Megan, were on the Green Planet, but only their souls and their scattered belongings, which were now about to melt, while Carrie, who was still in the spacecraft, stared at the green light with wide eyes. She was calling out to her companions as the Green Bird’s engine had failed, and the death of the green lights was her destiny.


A rather odd coupling of event and venue managed to drag me into a little project last Thursday. A legitimate astrophysicist was giving a presentation at a local brewery. His emphasis was on the search for alien life, and no, we haven’t found any yet. One of the curiosities of this event was whether the patrons would lean more in the direction of science nerd or ruffians yelling “more mead, wench”. The astrophysicist presenter started the night by saying that he was fully prepared for the latter and he was OK with that, but sadly, he was mistaken, people were there to learn. Now that doesn’t mean that nerdy types don’t like their beer, They’re just more timid about how they get it.
Perhaps one of the most useful new tools in search for life is the new Webb telescope, which can decipher the chemical make up of the atmospheres of planets in other solar systems. Webb won’t be able to prove life on another planet, but it will give us an idea of how likely or unlikely it is for said planet. Before this, the only aliens we could hope to find outside of our solar system would be ones with radios and radio telescopes, which is a very high bar, in my opinion. I would guess that the majority of the pockets of life scattered around the universe, quite an assumption in itself, do not have such abilities.
It’s been recently learned that the most likely places for life in our own solar system is the vast oceans of one of the moons of Jupiter, named Europa, and one of the moons of Saturn, named Enceladus, and this… This is what the presenter was most excited about, what he was really here to talk about. Europa is estimated to have twice the amount of water than the Earth, under a layer of ice. His imagination and hopeful expectation was that, under the ice, one might find microscopic organisms, perhaps similar to the ones that have inhabited our oceans for billions of years, huddling around geothermal vents.
Now, by this point, you might be asking yourself, “what was David’s project he opened with? Why am I reading this? Is that an ant or a termite walking across my floor?” Well, all of your answers… One of your answers is here.
In the question and answers, a staff member of a politician asked “What is your best argument that my boss can use to explain why we should fund these projects.” At this, the presenter completely whiffed, babbling about this and that. So my project, thrust upon me, was to write a better answer:
It is the innate human desire to explore that caused us to walk out of Africa, depart into an open ocean in rickety boats for possible destinations not known at departure, make maps for future people to follow, build microscopes, discover that there are more elements than earth wind and fire, test and make the necessary corrections to our understanding of the laws of physics, without which understanding, none of our current technologies could possibly have been invented. These are the practical things. Then, isn’t there a desire to know? We are curious by nature, at least when we are very young. Sometimes the routines of life hide that curiosity but can often be revived with new discovery, which lead to new questions. Are we alone? Where did we come from? What might be our fate? Many discoveries can be done by clever individuals or corporations, but there are some discoveries and questions that require the kinds of effort, cooperation and resources that will only come with collective entities such as governments. For profit corporations are not set up to tackle a giant project who’s payback will be answering questions like are we alone, or how is our sun likely to behave, and not get a result for thirty years or more.
A question that I wish I got answered: If we found microscopic life on Europa, and brought some back, do you think they would brew good beer? Is this brewery secretly funding your project?
Excellent answer to the question asked by the politician’s staffer.
Almost as excellent is that alien sunning himself! 👽👾
Amen, and cheers to the curious.