When Science Disillusions

Eric Diaz

Having been a child of the 60s I was naturally inspired by what was euphemistically referred to as the Space Age--in my innocence being totally oblivious to the "arms race" that underlay and was the impetus for the race to the moon. I, liked my friends, dreamed of one day becoming an astronaut. We were glued to our black and white TV sets watching every launch of every mission. We were in awe when we sat in our seats in the movie theater and first viewed the then revolutionary vision of Arthur C. Clarke on the silver screen in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. We were, of course, all Star Trek junkies and each of us had plastic models that we had assembled of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsules--visual aids of our childhood daydreams of one day exploring space. In school, this dream motivated us to do well in math and science.

My boyhood fantasy later translated itself into the study of astronomy and astrophysics, and there in lie the foundation of my eventual disillusionment. Our knowledge of the universe slowly grew up with us. We as children knew nothing of the Coronal Mass Ejection that passed closed to the Earth in between two Apollo missions. For that matter, neither did mission control nor even solar physicists of the day. It wasn't until Skylab that we began probing the secrets of our sun in any great depth.

Now, all grown up, I know of the dangers of things like CMEs and X-class flares to astronauts, especially those en route to another world. Having studied astrophysics, I now know the dangers of cosmic rays from distant supernovae to astronauts. Many astronauts have reported seeing tiny little flashes of light, even with their eyelids closed which we now know are cosmic rays passing through their brains, which on an extended trip to say someplace like Mars in the short-term could cause significant brain damage and in the long-term, life-threatening cancers.

Of course I know, keeping up with the latest progress in astrophysics, people like former astronaut and professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, Jeffrey Alan Hoffman, Ph.D. (pictured left) are working on a solution to this problem in their research of producing a feasible electromagnetic shield to protect astronauts on long missions, while others are developing composite materials that are effective in blocking cosmic rays and deadly solar radiation. But honestly, I think we all know that it's going to be some time before working prototypes will be available.

And then there is the problem of the deleterious effects of zero-g on the human body during long-duration missions. Some have proposed having a spacecraft rotate while astronauts are en route to a place like Mars. But whether or not that is an adequate measure or not remains to be seen. And I think it's safe to say that we are a very long way off from the fantastical artificial gravity of Star Trek.

And even though I know that in time we will eventually tackle these problems, it's still not the same as when I was a wide-eyed boy. The bottom line is that the fantasy of what inspired me to learn the science has been ruined by the very science that was inspired by the fantasy in the first place. Through astrophysics I have learned the unsettling truth that we do not live in the universe of awe and wonder of my youth, but rather we live in a very violent and dangerous universe that is trying to kill us in a whole host of ways. This is my lamentation for the day. ;-)

Comments

That's precisely my story. I turned 50 last summer, so I grew up with the Space Age. I was infatuated with Rocket-Ships and Space-Men through the whole 1960s and most of the '70s. But I had some intuition for physics, and the inevitable happened: the Machines and the Astronauts started to pale in comparison. I lost my infatuation with them, came to understand them as tools, and not ends in themselves. Being more fascinated with the Machines and the seemingly glamorous lives of the people inside them is to me now like salivating over a lady's sexy hooters and not giving a rat's ass if she has a single deep thought in her head.

Disillusionment is good in science. The history of science is a story of disillusionment compounded upon disillusionment. Disillusionment is scientific progress. It is maturation. I've lost a lot over the years to disillusionment, but it's all been paid for handsomely. In my experience, the reality has always been better than the myth.

Bradley (not verified) | 02/09/10 | 10:19 AM

Everything you wrote is quite true, Bradley. And it gets more interesting each day!

It is a maturation process. And to be honest, with everything I know about space flight and the many discomforts from launch to landing, I don't think I would take a ride into space even if it were offered to me. I kind of like it down here on Terre Firma! LOL ;-)

Eric Diaz | 02/10/10 | 00:03 AM

What a fantastic blog and comment!

stellardust (not verified) | 02/09/10 | 12:21 PM

Having been a child of the 60s I was naturally inspired by what was euphemistically referred to as the Space Age ...

Eric: I see your 'child of the 60s' and raise you 'child of the 50s'.

I remember being fairly unsurprised by the launch of Sputnik 1. The launch of a 'rocket into outer space' was the subject of much contemporary science fiction and much contemporary popular science and engineering fact. The USSR and USA by about 1952 both had the technology to build a rocket which could launch a satellite. In the USA the bureaucrats said "Hold up there!". In the USSR, a different bunch of bureaucrats said "Get it done!", which they did, with style!

I am greatly disappointed that we did not continue to pursue the dream of permanently manned bases on the moon. Imagine the delight of astronomers if they had their very own base on the far side. Perfect 'seeing' in all electromagnetic spectra. Wunderbar!

Patrick Lockerby | 02/10/10 | 08:13 AM

This article immediately brought to mind the following verses by Thomas Hood, which we were given to learn at school.

I remember, I remember
The house where I was born,
The little window where the sun
Came peeping in at morn;
He never came a wink too soon
Nor brought to long a day;
But now, I often wish the night
Had borne my breath away.

. . . . . .

I remember, I remember
Where I used to swing,
And thought the air must rush as fresh
To swallows on the wing;
My spirit flew in feathers then
That is so heavy now,
And summer pools could hardly cool
The fever on my brow.

I remember, I remember
The fir trees dark and high;
I used to think their slender tops
Were close against the sky:
It was childish ignorance,
But now 'tis little joy
To know I'm farther off from Heaven
Than when I was a boy

It's not so much the hostility of the cosmos towards Man, but the whole vanity of it, what with the fact that those lovely stars are all dying, that gets me.

and the heavens are the work of your hands.

They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . from Psalm 102.

Our Galaxy is like that, already a bit moth-eaten, full of dust and black holes.

And in certain moods, I find no pleasure in watching a wildlife programme, thinking of all the horrid things that are happening there.

I'm about the same age as Patrick, but already I feel Ecclesiastes 12 beckoning.

Robert H Olley | 02/10/10 | 12:00 PM

Yes, the poem and the two passages from the bible very eloquently express the feeling that I tried to express in the article, Robert. Thank you for the comment.

Eric Diaz | 02/10/10 | 12:12 PM

"The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true. "
:)

Patrick Lockerby | 02/12/10 | 10:39 AM

It's not so much the hostility of the cosmos towards Man...

It's interesting that you would phrase it that way, since that is often the way people talk about nature, in general. In my experience, the intimidating aspect of nature is not "hostility" but rather the enormous sense of indifference.

Gerhard Adam | 02/10/10 | 12:14 PM

...rather we live in a very violent and dangerous universe that is trying to kill us in a whole host of ways...

To continue the thought from my previous response, it isn't that the universe is "trying to kill us", but rather that it is indifferent to whether it does or not. Just as when we walk through the grass we are indifferent to the disruption we may be causing to various insects along the way, or who knows what matter of chaos we create for our microbial companions.

In part, the irony isn't that the universe is dangerous or violent, but rather that as kids we didn't care. We've become more aware of our own mortality, which probably says more about us, than it does the universe.

Gerhard Adam | 02/10/10 | 12:21 PM

Well, I didn't mean to suggest that the universe has it in for us
personally. LOL But we are very fragile creatures when compared to the
tremendous and varied forces of nature--whether is be Earthquakes,
volcanoes or tsunamis or biological/microscopic pathogens or just the
failure of our own bodies or nearby GRB-producing Wolf-Rayet stars with
their polar axis aimed directly at us or killer comets or asteroids or
the many dangerous species that cohabit this planet with us that are
potential threats to our lives, etc. It's certainly not the "cradle of life" that it once was thought to be.

Eric Diaz | 02/10/10 | 12:27 PM

...I didn't mean to suggest that the universe has it in for us personally.

I realize that you didn't think that it was some sort of cosmic grudge match :)

It's certainly not the "cradle of life" that it once was thought to be.

Probably not, but then we still managed to get here.

Interestingly enough, I think you're making an excellent point when considered against some of the wilder, more optimistic claims of what science will achieve in the future. In particular, it seems that the more we learn, the more we become exposed to the risks and see just how indifferent the universe is to our questions and concerns.

At the level of the cosmos, this seems a fairly acceptable condition, but it's interesting that in many other disciplines we still maintain the illusion that we'll attain a high degree of control, if not complete control. Yet, isn't this a similar situation to antibiotics, where we begin all dreamy-eyed that we've conquered diseases, only to discover that life doesn't hold still for a one round victory. I suspect that as our knowledge increases, we will find more and more instances of where we have to face just how precarious our existence actually is. Hopefully, this may cause a more sober assessment of the things we should attempt to control.

... found a perfect example:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/geoengineering-earth-climate-100210.html

Gerhard Adam | 02/10/10 | 13:14 PM

I agree with your assessment of the situation, Gerhard. And, I enjoyed reading the article. Thanks for posting the link.

Eric Diaz | 02/10/10 | 13:55 PM

In my youth there was a lot of concern that the nearby star Sirius might explode and ruin our leisure time. It had been described as a white star in ancient China, red in classical Rome, white in the dark ages, red in the middle ages, and blue white in recent rimes. That’s the sequence of a star that is about to go super nova. So I grew up thinking I might have to find some other world to live on, even if it wasn’t a perfect place or an easy journey.

Now astronomers have decided the sequence can’t happen that fast and we might have another 100,000 years before the curtain falls. Then it was discovered that Sirius is not quite massive enough to make the big league, and the white dwarf companion might drew off some of the mass in smaller explosions that make the end time of Sirius a little less dangerous on earth.

There is the unlikely case where Sirius captures the companion, as apparently it did capture a second companion during the death of the white dwarf. Then all bets are off. The combined mass would just about finish us off.

After a lot of research grants, the experts decided that we aren’t in much danger from Sirius, and the grant money moved on to other topics.

Jerry Decker | 02/10/10 | 20:37 PM

You're talking about a possible semi-detach binary system in which the white dwarf primary may accrete enough material from the secondary to reach the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.44 solar masses and explode as a Type Ia supernova, Jerry. I'm talking about an actual Wolf-Rayet star--the designation of which eludes me--the polar axis of which is pointed right at the Earth. No bull. And, if I recall, it's not all that far away. ;-)

Eric Diaz | 02/10/10 | 21:25 PM

an actual Wolf-Rayet star--the designation of which eludes me

WR 104, perchance?

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=4561

Patrick Lockerby | 02/10/10 | 22:25 PM

Yep! That's the one, Patrick! And, I'm so relieved to learn that it's not the threat that it once was thought to be. Maybe, I should come to you with all of the ominous gloom and doom scenarios that have come to my attention in recent years and have you one by one allay my fears about them. Then, I won't have to take so many tranquilizers, and I can sleep better at night! LOL ;-)

P.S. I have a thing for Wolf-Rayet stars too, just like the author. That's how it came to be that I learned about WR 104. I should really know better. After all of the years that I've been involved in science, I should know to take these apocalyptic predictions with a grain of salt. ;-)

Eric Diaz | 02/10/10 | 22:45 PM

I should know to take these apocalyptic predictions with a grain of salt. ;-)

Of course! Very wise!

By the way, how's the Yellowstone magma chamber coming along? ;)

Patrick Lockerby | 02/10/10 | 23:08 PM

LOL Patrick! Now that's one, ironically, I'm not worried about. And the reason for that is new seismic technology that's akin to taking an ultrasound of a fetus, has shown that the main magma chamber of Yellowstone has divided into two smaller magma chambers and the rest of the magma near the surface seems to have solidified. Consequently, from this survey done by the USGS, it has been concluded that there isn't enough magma for another super-eruption....at least not for some tens to hundreds of millions of years from now. So, I'm okay with that one. I'm just glad that I don't live near Vesuvius. That baby has been building up some steam for quite awhile. And the same seismic technology that I mentioned with respect to the Yellowstone caldera has been used on Vesuvius. Only in this case they discovered that beneath Vesuvius is a magma chamber that is larger than the base of the mountain. I wouldn't want to be in Naples when that thing decides to pop! ;-)

Eric Diaz | 02/10/10 | 23:57 PM

Eric,

I believe you were referring to WR 104 that might zap us from 8000 light years away within a few hundred thousand years, or sooner.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080310-mm-grb-us.html

Sooner? How much sooner? No one knows. This stuff is still experimental. It sounds like a large distance, but too close for comfort if it is a direct hit.

In Sagittarius it rotates around the center of our galaxy faster than we do, so it might be pointed in a different direction by the time it gives it’s gamma ray burst. Then again it might still be pointed straight at us., with enough power to knock out communications satellites. I believe Wolf-Rayet stars are about ready to become pulsars and the first pulse is the gamma rays focused in the spin axis of the magnetic field.

The pair I mentioned is Alpha Canis Major A and B, 8.6 light years away and getting closer by 4.5 miles per second. The time frame on that one might be a hundred thousand years, or less.

What does a type Ia supernova look like from 8 light years distance, and would it be covered by my home owner’s insurance?

There is a similar but slightly smaller system a little farther away, and approaching us less quickly, Alpha Canis Minor A and B, but the time frame is longer.

It seems more likely that we will encounter an asteroid before we get fried by a star, and that is something we might be able to prevent with a better financed space program.

Jerry Decker | 02/11/10 | 02:26 AM

I have to agree with you, Jerry that we're more likely to get hit by an asteroid or comet. And you're right. That is one natural disaster we may actually be able to do something about if there was just the funding.

Eric Diaz | 02/11/10 | 11:18 AM

Eric,

My experience is, in a way, the opposite of yours. I grew up under life-threatening circumstances going back as far as my earliest memories (about age 3 1/2). The activities that followed a bit later seemed relatively tame. In high school I became obsessed with wrestling. After high school, it was motorcycles. I modified, built, and raced both legally and illegally. At age 27 I took up tree climbing (take-downs, heavy pruning) for a living, which happens to be quite risky. In my mid 30's I went into auto repair for 20 years (and motorcycles again), then driving 18 wheelers for a few years, and in 2001 it was back to tree work. I still climb about 2 days per week to supplement my social security (no bucket truck or crane, just climbing and roping techniques with my ground man). Two years ago I fell out of a tree and was pretty severely injured. Six month to recover, then back up the trees.

The point is, any one of us can be gone at any time. That does not diminish the awesomeness and wonder of creation, of nature! Science taught me who and what I am -- each of us is the result of an unbroken chain of life dating back nearly four billion years! And we are the results of natural selection, thus products of increasing capabilities over that VAST period of time.

And I think it's safe to say that we are a very long way off from the fantastical artificial gravity of Star Trek.

So? Our descendants will probably accomplish it, or something similar. In the meantime, look at what we have accomplished during just the past two centuries, and what we are on the verge of accomplishing now...

Is it not cool what Carl Woese has done?! We now have evidence that we are related to one the most ancient families of bacteria, the Thermotoga. Essentially, all life is related. This is more than just a mere assertion!

In regard to the possibility of the earth being destroyed: The odds are that Carl Sagan is correct -- there is likely life on many other planets. They would have to be made of "stardust" like us, and subject to the same laws of nature. Life most likely would continue...

We are all related and interconnected. Please don't be disillusioned -- life is fantastic!

Fred Pauser | 02/11/10 | 14:45 PM

I appreciate your comments, Fred. And don't get me wrong; disillusionment isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's a part of becoming a mature adult.....and with respect to scientific progress, a mature species. And, I still love life, astronomy and geology. I get a tremendous amount of joy from all three. To me the loss of innocence and naivety concerning the universe in which we live is just a form of growing pangs. : )

Eric Diaz | 02/11/10 | 15:24 PM

Eric,

I agree, you have made a very good point. It just seemed to me there was a certain tone of both the article and following comments that could use a little counter-balancing. :)

Fred Pauser | 02/12/10 | 09:09 AM

Right on, Fred!

Fred Phillips | 02/11/10 | 14:55 PM

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here

Related Articles Here On Scientific Blogging

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here