Of Particular Significance

Tag: astronomy

The December solstice has come and gone at 11:11 a.m. London time (6:11 a.m New York time). That’s the moment when the north pole of the Earth points most away from the sun, and the south pole points most toward it. Because it’s followed by a weekend and then Christmas Eve, it marks the end of the 2012 blogging season, barring a major event between now and year’s end. But although 11:11 London time is the only moment of astronomical significance during this day (clearly the universe does not care where humans set our international date line and exactly how we set our time zones, so destruction was never going to be at local midnight — something the media doesn’t seem to get) it obviously wasn’t the end of the world.

A lot of people do put a lot of stock in prophecy, including prophecies of the end of the world that nobody ever made (such as the one not made for today by the Mayans, through their calendar) and others that people made but were wrong (such as those made by Harold Camping last year and by many throughout history who preceded him.) If anyone were any good at prophecy they’d be able to use their special knowledge to become billionaires, so maybe we should be watching Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg and the Koch brothers and people like that. I haven’t heard any rumors of them building bunkers or spaceships yet. Of course at the end of the year they may get a small tax hike, but that wouldn’t be the end of the world.

The Large Hadron Collider [LHC], meanwhile, has triumphantly reached the end of its first run of proton-proton collisions. Goal #1 of the LHC was to allow physicists at the ATLAS and CMS experiments to discover the Higgs particle, or particles, or whatever took their place in nature; and it would appear that, in a smashing success, they have co-discovered one.  But no Higgs particles, or anything like them, will be produced again until 2015. Although the LHC will run for a short while in early 2013, it will do so in a different mode, smashing not protons but the nuclei of lead atoms together, in order to study the properties of extremely hot and dense matter, under conditions the universe hasn’t seen since the earliest stages of the Big Bang that launched the current era of our universe.  Then it will be closed down for repairs and upgrades.  So until 2015, any additional information we’re going to learn about the Higgs particle, or any other unknown particle that might have been produced at the LHC, is going to be obtained by analyzing the data that has been collected in 2011 and 2012. The total amount of data is huge; what was collected in 2012 was about 4.5 times as much as in 2011, and it was taken at 8 TeV of energy per proton-proton collision rather than 7 TeV as in 2011. I can assure you there will be many new things learned from analyzing that data throughout 2013 and 2014.

Of course a lot of people prophesied confidently that we’d discover supersymmetry, or something else dramatic, very early on at the LHC. Boy, were they wrong! Those of us who were cautioning against such optimistic statements are not sure whether to laugh or cry, because of course it would have been great to have such a discovery early in the LHC program. But there was ample reason to believe (despite what other bloggers sometimes say) that even if supersymmetry exists and is accessible to the LHC experiments, discovering it could take a lot longer than just two years!  For instance, see this paper written in 2006 pointing out that the search strategies being planned for seeking supersymmetry might fail in the presence of a few extra lightweight particles not predicted in the minimal variants of supersymmetry. As far as I can tell at present, this very big loophole has only partly been closed by the LHC studies done up to now. The same loophole applies for other speculative ideas, including certain variants of LHC-accessible extra dimensions. I am hopeful that these loopholes can be closed in 2013 and 2014, with additional analysis on the current data, but until they are, you should be very cautious believing those who claim that reasonable variants of LHC-accessible supersymmetry (meaning “natural variants of supersymmetry that resolve the hierarchy problem”) are ruled out by the LHC experiments. It’s just not true. Not yet. The only classes of theories that have been almost thoroughly ruled out by LHC data are those predict on general grounds that there should be no observable Higgs particle at all (e.g. classic technicolor).

While we’re on the subject, I’ve been looking back at how I did on prophecy this year. It’s been a remarkably good year, probably my best ever — though admittedly I only made very easy (though not necessarily common) predictions. First, the really easy one:  I assured you, as did most of my colleagues, that 2012 would be the Year of the Higgs — at least, the Year of the Simplest Possible Higgs particle, called the “Standard Model Higgs”. It would be the year when Phase 1 of the Higgs Search would end — when we’d either find a Higgs particle of Standard Model type (or something looking vaguely like it), or, if not, we’d know we’d have to move to a more aggressive search in Phase 2, in which we’d look for more complicated versions of the Higgs particle that would have been much harder to find. We started the year with ambiguous hints of the Higgs particle, too flimsy to be sure of, but certainly tantalizing, at around a mass of 125 GeV/c2. In July the hints turned into a discovery — somewhat faster than expected for a Standard Model Higgs particle, because the rate for this particle to appear in collisions that produce two photons was higher than anticipated. The excess in the photon signal means either the probability for the Higgs particle to decay to photons is larger than predicted for a Higgs of Standard Model type, or both CMS and ATLAS experienced a fortunate statistical fluctuation that made the discovery easier. We still don’t know which it was; though we’ll know more by March, this ambiguity may remain with us until 2015.

One prophecy I made all the way back at the beginning of this blog, July 2011, was that the earliest search strategy for the Higgs, through its decays to a lepton, anti-lepton, neutrino and anti-neutrino, wouldn’t end up being crucial in the discovery; it was just too difficult. (In this experimental context, “lepton” refers only to “electron” or “muon”; taus don’t count, for technical reasons.) In the end, I said, it would be decays of the Higgs to two photons and to two lepton/anti-lepton pairs that would be the critical ones, because they would provide a clean signal that would be uncontroversial. And that prophesy was correct; the photon-based and lepton-based searches were the signals that led to discovery.

Now we’ve reached December, and the data seems to imply that except possibly for this overabundance of photons, which still tantalizes us, the various measurements of how the Higgs-like particle is produced and decays are starting to agree, to a precision which is still only moderate, with the predictions of the Standard Model for a Higgs of this mass. Fewer and fewer experts are still suggesting that this is not a Higgs particle. But it will be some years yet — 2018 or later — before measurements are precise enough to start convincing people that this Higgs particle is really of Standard Model type. Many variants of the Standard Model, with new particles and forces, predict that the difference of the real Higgs from a Standard Model Higgs may be subtle, with deviations at the ten percent level or even less. Meanwhile, other Higgs-like particles, with different masses and different properties, might be hiding in the data, and it may take quite a while to track them down. Many years of data collecting and data analysis lie ahead, in Phase 2 of the Higgs search.

Another prophecy I made at the beginning of the year was that Exotic Decays of the Higgs would be a high priority for 2012. You might think this prophesy was wrong, because in fact, so far, there have been very few searches at ATLAS, CMS and LHCb for such decays. But the challenge that required prioritizing these decays wasn’t data analysis; it was the problem of even collecting the data. The problem is that many exotic decays of the Higgs would lead to events that might not be selected by the all-important trigger system that determines which tiny fraction of the LHC’s collisions to store permanently for analysis! At the beginning of 2012 there was a risk that some of these processes would have been dumped by the trigger and irretrievably lost from the 2012 data, making future searches for such decays impossible or greatly degraded. At a hadron collider like the LHC, you have to think ahead! If you don’t consider carefully the analyses you’ll want to do a year or two from now, you may not set the trigger properly today. So although the priority for data analysis in 2012 was to find the Higgs particle and measure its bread-and-butter properties, the fact that the Higgs has come out looking more or less Standard Model-like in 2012 means that focusing on exotic possibilities, including exotic decays, will be one of the obvious places to look for something new, and thus a very high priority for data analysis, in 2013 and 2014. And that’s why, for the trigger — for the collection of the data — exotic decays were a very high priority for 2012. Indeed, one significant use of the new strategy of delayed data streaming at ATLAS and of data parking at CMS (two names for the same thing) was to address this priority. [My participation in this effort, working with experimentalists and with several young theorists, was my most rewarding project of 2012.]  As I explained to you, a Higgs particle with a low mass, such as 125 GeV/c2, is very sensitive to the presence of new particles and forces that are otherwise very difficult to detect, and it easily could exhibit one or more types of exotic decays.  So there will be a lot of effort put into looking for signs of exotic decays in 2013 and 2014! I’m very excited about all the work that lies ahead of us.

Now, the prophecy I’d like to make, but cannot — because I do not have any special insight into the answer — is on the question of whether the LHC will make great new discoveries in the future, or whether the LHC has already made its last discovery: a Higgs particle of Standard Model type. Even if the latter is the case, we will need years of data from the LHC in order to distinguish these two possibilities; there’s no way for us to guess. It’s clear that Nature’s holding secrets from us.  We know the Standard Model (the equations we use to describe all the known particles and forces) is not a complete theory of nature, because it doesn’t explain things like dark matter (hey, were dark matter particles perhaps discovered in 2012?), and it doesn’t tell us why, for example, there are six types of quarks, or why the heaviest quark has a mass that is more than 10,000 times larger than the mass of the lightest quarks, etc. What we don’t know is whether the answers to those secrets are accessible to the LHC; does it have enough energy per collision, and enough collisions, for the job?  The only way to find out is to run the LHC, and to dig thoroughly through its data for any sign of anything amiss with the predictions of the Standard Model. This is very hard work, and it will take the rest of the decade (but not until the end of the world.)

In the meantime, please do not fret about the quiet in the tunnel outside Geneva, Switzerland. The LHC will be back, bigger and better (well, at least with more energy per collision) in 2015. And while we wait during the two year shutdown, the experimentalists at ATLAS, CMS, and LHCb will be hard at work, producing many new results from the 2011 and 2012 proton collision data! Even the experiments CDF and DZero from the terminated Tevatron are still writing new papers. In short, fear not: not only isn’t the December solstice of 2012 the end of the world, it doesn’t even signal a temporary stop to the news about the Higgs particle!

—-

One last personal note (just for those with some interest in my future.)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON December 21, 2012

This is a post about constancy and inconstancy, one of my favorite topics.  And about how alcohol can make you smarter.

There are many quantities that we call “constants of nature”.  Of course, anything we call a “constant” is merely something that, empirically, appears to be constant, to the extent we can measure it.  Everything we know comes from observation and experiment, and our knowledge is always limited by how good our measurements are.

We have pretty good evidence that a number of basic physical quantities are pretty much constant.  A lot of evidence comes from the constancy of the colors of light waves (i.e. the frequencies of waves of electromagnetic radiation) that are emitted by different types of atoms, which appear to be very much the same from day to day and year to year and even across billions of years (neat trick! will describe that another time), and from here to the next country and on to the moon and to the sun and across our galaxy to distant galaxies.  For example, if the electron mass changed very much over time and place, or if the strength of the electromagnetic force varied, then atoms, and the precise colors they emit, would also change.  Since we haven’t ever detected such an effect, it makes sense to think of the electron mass and the electromagnetic force’s strength as constants of nature.

But they’re not necessarily exactly constant.  One can always imagine they vary slowly enough across time or place that we wouldn’t have noticed it yet, with our current experimental technology.  So it makes sense to look at very distant places and measure whatever we can to seek signs that maybe, just maybe, some of the constants actually vary after all.

[I wrote a paper in 2001 with Paul Langacker and Gino Segre about this subject (Calmet and Fritzsch had a similar one).  This followed the observational claims of this paper (now thought false) suggesting the strength of electromagnetism varies across the universe and/or with time.  A lot of what follows in this post is based on what I learned writing that old paper.]

Suppose they did vary?  Well, the discovery of any variation whatsoever, in any quantity, would be a bombshell, and it would open up a door to an entirely new area of scientific research.  Once one quantity were known to vary, it would be much more plausible that others vary too.  For instance, if the electron mass varies, why not the W particle’s mass, which affects the strength of the weak nuclear force, and thereby radioactivity rates and the properties of supernovas?  If the electromagnetic force strength varies, why not that of the strong nuclear force?  There would be interest in understanding whether the variation is over space, over time, or both.  Is it continuous and slow, or does it occur in jumps?  One can imagine dozens of new experiments that would be proposed to study these questions — and the answers might reveal relations among the laws and “constants” of nature that we are currently completely unaware of, as well as giving us new insights into the history of the universe.

So it would be a very big deal.  [Though I should note it would also be puzzling: even small variations in these constants would naively lead to large variations in the “dark energy” (i.e. cosmological “constant”) of the universe, which would potentially make the universe very inhomogeneous.  However, we don’t understand dark energy, so this expectation might be too naive.] Since there’s no story about it on the front page of the New York Times, you can already guess that no variation’s been found.  But a nice new measurement’s been done. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON December 18, 2012

This is a modified version of last year’s 11/11/11 article, in case you missed it.

Today is a special day — at least if you are fond of the number 12, and especially so if you’re willing to buy in to one of the oldest human pseudo-scientific pursuits: numerology. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I love numbers and I always have. When I was five years old I was mesmerized when my parents’ car reached 99,999.9 miles, and I think 12:34:56 on 7/8/90 is just a cool a time as anybody else does. But I do this with a sense of humor.

Unfortunately it happens that a few influential people attempt serious and consequential numerology involving the calendar — predicting disaster and convincing people to sell their homes and give away their belongings. Now that makes me mad. Outraged, in fact — because it’s often obvious from the way these predictions are generated that those who made them don’t understand much about the calendar, about time, about history and about astronomy or physics… and yet they speak with authority, an authority they haven’t earned and don’t deserve.

So as we celebrate this one-two-of-a-kind moment, let’s also remember, and enjoy, just how absurd it really is. Let us even count the ways. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON December 12, 2012

The meaning of the title of Clara Moskowitz’s new article for the public, “Dark Matter Mystery May Soon Be Solved“, all lies in the word “may”.  It may.  It may not.

According to the article, “the answer to this cosmic mystery could come within the next three or four years, scientists say.”

I have to admit that this kind of phraseology, which one often sees in the press in reports about science, drives me a bit nuts.  Which scientists? How many of them?  You can’t tell from this line whether this is something that a group of three or four mavericks are claiming, or whether it is conventional wisdom shared by most of the community.   And “the answer… could come…”? Interpreted literally it is content-free: yes, the answer could come in the next few years, or not — but you don’t need any scientists to tell you that.  If one interprets it more optimistically — that it is intended to imply that the answer will very likely come within the next three or four years — then I think it is far from clear what fraction of the experts will agree with that statement.

Rather than debate the claim, let’s start with the physics.  What will determine how long it takes to discover what dark matter is made from? (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 29, 2012

One of the questions I get most often from my readers is this:

  • Since gravity pulls on things proportional to their mass, and since the Higgs field is responsible for giving everything its mass, there obviously must be a deep connection between the Higgs and gravity… right?

It’s a very reasonable guess, but — it turns out to be completely wrong. The problem is that this statement combines a 17th century notion of gravity, long ago revised, with an overly simplified version of a late-20th century notion of where masses of various particles comes from.  I’ve finally produced the Higgs FAQ version 2.0, intended for non-experts with little background in the subject, and as part of that, I’ve answered this question.  But since the question is so common, I thought I’d also put the answer in a post of its own.

As preface, let me bring out my professorial training and correct the question above with a red pen:

  • Since gravity pulls on things proportional to their mass to a combination of their energy and momentum, and since the Higgs field is responsible of giving everything not everything, just the known elementary particles excepting the Higgs particle itself its mass, there obviously must be a deep connection between the Higgs and gravity… right? wrong.

Now let me explain these corrections one by one. (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 15, 2012

A number of transitions to talk about:

First, I’m participating in a panel discussion today (Thursday June 7th) on the transition that has seen me add science writer and popularizer to my resume’. Here’s the link… free tickets required, click here for details and tickets. Sponsored by SoNYC (Science online New York City), panel discussion entitled “Reaching out of the Ivory Tower”, about the experiences of scientists who are reaching out to the public. Panelists: Ethan Perlstein, Sarah Weisberg, Matt Strassler, Jeanne Garbarino.  Location and time: Weiss 305, Rockefeller University, East 66th and York Ave. New York, NY, 7:00 PM.   Presenting science to the public in a digestible but honest form is something I feel is important, and I’ll have a few words to say about why I chose to do it now and why via a website and blog. And then I guess the floor will be open to questions, so come on by and ask one!

Reminder: again in New York, Saturday June 16th at 2pm, I’ll be giving a lecture (click here for details):  THE EINSTEIN OBSESSION: SCIENCE, MYTH AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION.

Next: I hope you all enjoyed seeing Venus in transit across the Sun Tuesday, in whatever method you chose. If you missed it live, there are of course opportunities to see films of the event — and they’ll save you time, since they’re all speeded up so that the hours pass in a minute or so. Nice views of Venus are complemented by several good-sized sunspots that are roughly the size of the Earth. Venus, you may recall, is the same size as the Earth, but as it was only a third as far away as the Sun yesterday, it appeared three times larger in radius (10 times larger in surface radius) than those sunspots. I managed to see it with the naked eye (with eclipse glasses), but just barely… so tiny! (By the way, if you missed my article on how a transit of Venus was used to obtain the first high-precision measurement of the distance to the sun, here’s the link.)

Here’s one of my own best shots, which I show you not because you can’t find better shots on the internet but because I have learned that most people do not realize you can get such nice views of the sun with so little work.

Venus in transit, at bottom.  Several sunspots dot the central region of the sun’s disk.  Photo of projection through binoculars onto white screen.  Image has been darkened slightly to sharpen contrast between sun and background.  Photo: M. Strassler 2012, all rights reserved.

It’s really quite easy.  And though there won’t be any more transits of Venus for us to see, there will be bigger sunspots, transits of Mercury, and solar eclipses to watch over the coming 15 years, so you may as well learn how to do this. You just aim the binoculars, big side toward the sun (as though someone were going to look at the sun — BUT DON’T LET ANYONE LOOK, of course), in the rough direction of the sun, wiggle the binoculars until the shadow of the binoculars becomes as small as it possibly can (which tells you they are aligned with the sun) and at that point the sun will shine through the two sides of the binoculars, giving you two images. Put a lens cover on one of the sides if you want to just get one image. Then let the image project onto something white and smooth that can serve as a screen. By moving the screen forward or back you can get a larger or smaller image; by using the focus on the binoculars you can bring the image of the sun into focus. Works great!

Here’s a picture, taken in a similar way, from the annular eclipse last month — a transit of the moon, even though we don’t usually call it that — taken the same way. I like this shot (though focus is imperfect and it was taken from a funny angle) because where the moon’s shadow touches the sun’s limb you can see a bit of light shining between mountain ranges on the moon!

A few seconds before annularity begins during the annular eclipse of the sun on May 20, 2012. Note, in the region where the moon’s silhouette touches the sun’s limb, a patch of sunlight shining through the mountain ranges on the moon. Light and dark regions at left and right of photo are due to shadows on the projection screen.  Photo: M. Strassler 2012, all rights reserved.

Venus, passing between the Sun and the Earth on Tuesday, has now transitioned from an object in the evening sky to one in the morning sky; if you want to see it, large and a very thin crescent through binoculars, you’ll need to get up early, before sunrise.  Not yet, though; it will be a few days before Venus is far enough from the Sun to pick out in the dawn sky.  For now, you can see Venus via the SOHO satellite, which blots out the sun so what’s nearby can be observed.

A final transition: Ray Bradbury died. Bradbury was one of the 20th century’s great science fiction writers, and I especially enjoyed reading his stories because he didn’t write classic geeky science fiction. His work was much more thoughtful and human than that. I think one could make a case that what made his writing unique was that he didn’t separate science from the rest of life.  It’s a good example for the rest of us to follow.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON June 7, 2012

I hope you’re all ready for today’s transit of Venus across the face of the Sun.  You certainly can’t have missed that it’s happening, given the media hype.  (Look at the website http://transitofvenus.nl/wp/, their post from yesterday in particular, for all sorts of useful resources, including timing for the event in various locations, and on-line resources for you to watch in case clouds interfere at your location. UPDATE: that website is overwhelmed. In the continental U.S. transit begins just after 6 pm Eastern, 3 pm Pacific, differing by a few minutes from place to place; and sunset will occur before the transit is over. One online location to watch the transit is http://events.slooh.com/)   But — let me be the first to warn you — this is going to be very cool, but it isn’t going to be a spectacular event like a big meteor shower or a total solar eclipse or even a total lunar eclipse.  It’s going to be subtle, slow, and potentially very boring, unless you have the right mindset (or a truly excellent telescope, properly filtered for sun viewing).  So here are some suggestions: (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON June 5, 2012

A reminder that the transit of Venus across the Sun will be visible a little over 24 hours from now (starting before sunset June 5th in the United States.)  It’s the last of your lifetime, so make your plans now.  Weather forecast across much of the eastern U.S. is pretty bad, I’m afraid. Of course there will be many places to watch on-line.  For more information, I highly recommend http://transitofvenus.nl/wp/ .  Also, though you and I can’t see Venus right now (too close to the Sun), the SOHO satellite can: click here for the latest photo, updated frequently, which shows the sun (at center, blocked out) and the sun’s corona around it, and a white dot approaching the sun, which is Venus (ignore the white horizontal lines, which are an imagining artifact).

The transit of Venus was used, historically, to figure out how big is the solar system (the sun and the planets).  As I’ll explain tomorrow, it wasn’t that hard to figure out how large are the distances between the sun and the planets relative to one another, but getting the overall scale — the absolute distances — was a much harder problem.  The first measurement accurate to a couple of percent came from the transits of Venus in the 1760s.  I’ll explain (roughly) how this works tomorrow; the technique relies on the principle of parallax, a principle which lies behind our own ability to perceive depth, and is used by astronomers to measure distances to (relatively nearby) stars.

[Reminder: two events coming up in which I’ll be speaking: (more…)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON June 4, 2012

First, a couple of things you might like to read:

  • There was a long-overdue article from the New York Times as to how, after eight years of cuts from the Bush administration during good economic times, followed by additional inevitable cuts during the Great Recession, formerly world-leading scientific research efforts in the United States are on the verge of collapse, risking far more than the scientific research itself.  The situation is far more dire, in my opinion, than the tone of the article implies; the brain drain of talent leaving the US is frightening and well underway, and the problems are by no means limited to particle physics and astrophysics.
  • The article that I described last month by Moni Bidin et al. that claimed (loudly, in the press) that there was little evidence for dark matter in the Sun’s interstellar neighborhood (but far from the center of the Milky Way galaxy) has been discredited by one of the world’s leading astrophysicists, working with a younger collaborator. The claim (made without a big press release) of Jo Bovy and Scott Tremaine, from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, is that one of the assumptions on which the Moni Bidin et al. argument was based is inconsistent with data and therefore wrong, ruining the argument. Bovy and Tremaine have replaced this assumption with a different one that is consistent with data, and they conclude, in contradiction to Moni Bidin et al., that the corrected argument leads to the conclusion that there is indeed dark matter in the vicinity — roughly the amount one would expect from other considerations. In short, the Moni Bidin argument, once corrected, actually leads to more evidence in favor of the existence of dark matter! A short description of the situation is given on the Resonaances blog.

Second: I’m starting to think about a new section for this website.

Particle physics, quantum mechanics, and all the strange-sounding stuff that many physicists study are often thought of as esoteric, abstract, and irrelevant to ordinary life. But in fact our world is directly impacted, in many different ways, by quarks and photons and quantum uncertainty and the like; these things are not abstract at all. To make this point more accessible, a website like this one needs a good introductory section to help beginners make their way into the world of particle physics. So I’m going to be constructing this section over the coming months. Feedback from readers as to whether the material is readable and sufficiently introductory will be very valuable, so please feel free to offer your comments.

One of my first tasks is to talk about the architecture of the universe — how its parts are formed from smaller parts, on down to the smallest objects we know about so far. Of course there are many other introductions to this subject already on the web (and a few of them are even correct!) What I hope will make my presentation a little different is the inclusion of some insights into not only what we know about the structure of the universe but also how we know it, and additionally some comments on how our lives are impacted by each level of detail in the architectural hierarchy.

The first phase of this process will be to look at how ordinary matter that we are made from and surrounded by is constructed from the basic ingredients of electrons, quarks (and anti-quarks and gluons), and the strong nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. The figure below gives a preview of what’s coming (and you can click the figure for a larger version.)

The hierarchical architecture of ordinary matter. At the lowest known level are found electrons (e), quarks (u,d,s) and anti-quarks, along with force particles such as gluons. Up and down quarks, gluons and pairs of quarks and antiquarks make up the proton and neutron (the “nucleons”), and are held together by the strong nuclear force; a residual effect of that force holds the protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei, of which there are a few hundred. The electromagnetic force allows electrons to attach themselves to nuclei, forming a hundred or so chemically distinct types of atoms. A residual effect of the electromagnetic force then binds the atoms together into a gigantic zoo of molecules, out of which the vast complexity of ordinary materials — the air, the sea, the rocks underfoot, and the immense diversity of life — are formed. Meanwhile gravity crushes the earth’s rock into a rough sphere and keeps the air, water, and living things from floating off into outer space.  The rough sizes of the objects appearing at each level of structure are indicated at right.
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON May 25, 2012

What would the Grand Canyon look like if it had sunset light without the sunset shadows?  Sunday’s annular solar eclipse provided a hint of an answer:

The Grand Canyon from the North Rim (Cape Royal), during the annular solar eclipse of May 20th, 2012, at maximum eclipse (“ring of fire”). Photo Matt Strassler, all rights reserved.

Quite a first visit to the North Rim of the canyon.  Maximum eclipse occurred an hour before sunset, and the sun set with a small piece of the moon’s silhouette still covering its disk.  As a result, the amount of sunlight remained low for the entire hour, bathing the canyon in the low light that allows its layers of color and geological time to be more easily seen.

Meanwhile, in the other direction the sun was still far too bright to look at with the naked eye, or photograph without a filter. Lacking both a proper filter and a tripod, this is all I could manage with my camera, I’m afraid:

The annular eclipse of May 20th, 2012, showing the moon traveling across the sun, along with various unfortunate camera and filter effects. What can I say? I’m an amateur photographer. Photo Matt Strassler, all rights reserved anyway.

I think that when you look at photos of an eclipse (certainly I find this for myself) it is easy to miss the visceral nature of the experience. When you are watching it happen, you can see (through a proper filter, or with a projection), second by second, the slow but steady glide of the moon across the sun. You can detect the ring of sunlight changing shape, from a perfect circle to one that is thicker on one side than the other, and finally turning back into a crescent. The process is a dynamic one, as well as a visual feast. And this is part of what makes it so beautiful — not just what one sees with the eyes, but what one feels as a witness to the steady motion of the heavens.

[p.s. don’t miss the other two crescents to see right now: crescent Venus and crescent Moon near each other in the western sky tonight!]

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON May 22, 2012

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.