I'm a geochemist. My main interest is in-situ mass spectrometry, but I have a soft spot in my heart for thermodynamics, poetry, drillers, trees, bicycles, and cosmochemistry.
Friday, December 27, 2013
Monday, December 16, 2013
Coal Cares
This is the most fantastically over-the-top pro-coal website I have ever seen. Pure genius. I have no idea who is actually behind coalcares.org, but I hereby declare them a legend of the internet.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Alien beyond comprehension
When an astronomer says a far-off planetary system is like ours, what
he means is that it is completely different.
For example, see the recent press releases about the seven planet system
KOI-135 (aka Kepler 90).
This system has a planet the size of Jupiter in an orbit
almost the same as our Earth’s. Since
the star is a little bigger (and hotter) than the sun, the orbit takes less
time, but the orbital radius is just like ours.
Inside of that, in an orbit about the size of Venus’s orbit,
is a Saturn sized gas giant planet.
Inboard of the Saturn-sized planet are three
mini-Neptunes. Our solar system doesn’t
have any planets of this type, but they seem to be fairly common in the rest of
the galaxy. These are gas rich planets
smaller than Neptune and Uranus, but still much larger than Earth. One of them
has an orbit substantially larger than that of Mercury, one substantially
smaller, and one about the same radius, but much more circular (Mercury has
quite an elliptical orbit).
Finally, inside of that, are two earth-sized planets that
orbit screamingly close to the planet. The
inner planet is more than five times closer to its star than Mercury is to the
Sun, and its orbit (e.g. its year) is only a week long. The other planet is only slightly farther
out, in a 9 day orbit.
It is not known if there are more planets farther out- Kepler’s
detection method would not pick them up.
So you gotta wonder, if that is Earthlike, then what are the
strange ones like?
In fact, the whole framing of exoplanetary research as “counting
up the Galaxy’s Earths” is a bit disingenuous.
By presenting a scientific study as having a foregone conclusion (e.g.
there are Earths everywhere), NASA takes a lot of the suspense and excitement
out of the search. Furthermore, it makes
trying to fit otherwise interesting discoveries into the Earthcount box
awkward, and it diminishes the wonder and diversity of just what is out there.
In fact, the NASA exo-Earth search program is a lot like
going to China
to find a person just like your mother.
After all, China
has billions of people, and they were all born more or less the same way as
your mother, so odds are, the place must be crawling with women just like mom.
Imagine how tedious a travel documentary of China would be
when viewed in this way. “Our way south to Beijing to look for mom-analogs was blocked
by some kind of wall- fortunately we managed to avoid it).” You would have
progress press releases, “Some people in China confirmed to be women.” “New mission shows some Chinese women to be
mothers.” Newly discovered Chinese woman
likes fried rice, just like your mom.”
This narcissistic approach misses the whole point of travel
and exploration. We investigate far-off
places because they are foreign, because they expose the assumptions on which
our beliefs are based, and because the let us discover new and wondrous things
that were beyond the scope of our imaginations.
This is what exoplanetary research does. Everything we have discovered in planetary
science, from the first Moon probes to the discovery of planets 2500 light
years away, has been wonderful and new and different to expectations and
awe-inspiring. But the current framing
of the science does not allow this amazement to be conveyed to the public who
fund the research. And this is a
terrible shame.
Thursday, December 05, 2013
The planets xkcd forgot
A recent cartoon/poster on xkcd tries to estimate what the population of habitable zone planets in our stellar neighborhood looks
like. Unfortunately, despite labeling the poster as “all habitable zone
planets”, there are a couple of very important omissions. The center of the picture should look like
this:
When discussing the habitable zone, and how it applies to
exoplanets, one needs to remember that the definition of habitable zone is
sufficiently wide that it covers both Mars and Venus, the closest planets to
Earth. In fact, despite discovering
thousands of exoplanets and exoplanet candidates, we still do not have any
planets as earthlike as Venus. It is hard to say much about exo-Mars
equivalents, as exoplanet detection technology has trouble finding a planet
that small and far from its host star.
Most of the planets shown in the chart have not been
discovered yet. Even among those which
have, very little data about the planets is available. It will be years, perhaps even decades,
before we have the technology to pick an exo-Earth from an exo-Venus. But
framing the exo-planet debate as an Earth versus Venus relative distribution
would be a mistake. Chances are, the
vast majority of these planets are completely unlike either planet.
Our solar system is strange.
It is missing the most abundant type of planet in our galaxy- those
which are larger than Earth, but smaller than Uranus. These worlds are often, albeit deceptively,
referred to as “super-earths”. But as
Systemic has shown, those which we have data for are not only completely
different to anything in our solar system, they are often quite different from
each other.
The omission of Venus and Mars is therefore important,
because it gives the false impression that planets in the habitable zone are
going to be Earthlike. Neither of the habitable zone planets in our solar system are particularly Earthlike, and everything we know about exoplanets so
far suggests that they will be far stranger still.