How did you get into Astronomy/Astrophysics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mépris
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around differing perspectives on astronomy and astrophysics, highlighting the varied reasons individuals are drawn to or disinterested in these fields. One participant expresses confusion over the fascination with astronomy, preferring physics topics like bubble formation. Others share personal experiences that sparked their interest, such as clear night skies and childhood exposure to telescopes and science fiction. The importance of engaging and well-taught classes is emphasized, as poor instruction can diminish enthusiasm for the subject.Participants reflect on the emotional aspects of astronomy, with some finding awe in celestial phenomena, while others experience feelings of sadness or existential dread when contemplating the universe's vastness and the inevitability of death. The conversation touches on the philosophical implications of existence, the potential for extraterrestrial life, and the impact of popular culture on perceptions of science. Ultimately, the dialogue reveals that personal experiences, emotional connections, and educational quality significantly influence one's interest in astronomy and astrophysics.
Mépris
Messages
847
Reaction score
11
I'm always a little baffled, whenever I see people talking about their "fascination" with astronomy. I never saw the "big deal" and on the outside, it doesn't look very interesting. I mean, I really dig physics and I'm interested in how things work - like, how bubbles are formed/how they go "pop" or that foamy thing which one can see when waves hit the shore - but I was never able to feel any sort of inclination towards astronomy or astrophysics.

Maybe when I have a class in it, my opinion will change. Anyway, I just wanted your thoughts on this and how you got to like it, if you do. Or why you don't like it, in case you don't.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I was interested in astronomy since childhood. When you grow up in a region that has mag 6-6.5 skies almost every night, it's hard not to get interested.
 
I used to go to summer camp at a nearby national park every year, and one year a group of amateur astronomers brought their telescopes. I got hooked; I think I was 11 years old at the time.
 
I think its much more common for people to want to study galaxies and black holes then 'why bubbles go pop'. If you are unable to see their perspective on why they think its fascinating then you're close-minded.
 
I got hooked because I grew up in Florida in the 1970's back when there was something resembling a space program. That and episodes of Star Trek and Doctor Who. If you really want to understand my fascination with astrophysics. Stephen Moffat does a good job explaining all of the emotional stuff with the new Series 5 and Series 6 DW (the start of the episode the Beast Below) is pretty nice about this.

Also a lot depends on which classes you take. A badly taught class can kill your interest in just about anything.
 
twofish-quant said:
Also a lot depends on which classes you take. A badly taught class can kill your interest in just about anything.

I have to strongly second this. I am very discouraged with astronomy/astrophysics right now due to a course I just took that covered things like magnitude, star formation, stellar evolution, black holes, galaxy classification, etc. It was a very broad, more mathematical, intro course to astrophysics. Was the worst course thus far in the past 3 years. I'm taking a course in gravitational astrophysics next semester and hopefully that one is a little better.

As for my initial interest in astronomy. I suppose a lot of it was fueled by being exposed to remarkably clear night skies and having the telescope out, there is something mesmerizing about seeing a dot in the sky but looking at it in a telescope and you see the rings of Saturn or the spot of Jupiter. Then seeing the images from Hubble of nebulae and galaxy clusters, especially the deep field image, it invokes a feeling of awe and inspiration to understand how these things came to be and the physics behind it.
 
Clever-Name said:
I have to strongly second this. I am very discouraged with astronomy/astrophysics right now due to a course I just took that covered things like magnitude, star formation, stellar evolution, black holes, galaxy classification, etc.

One thing that I've always been able to do is connect the math with the "feeling." The mathematics of astrophysics is a bit like looking at a race car or airplane and someone hands you the blueprints to see how everything works. I look at a ball of burning gas and someone hands me the blueprints. Something that helps me understand that the math is that I imagine myself reaching into the core of the star. What does it feel like? What does it smell like? What does it taste like?

Something that I encourage people to do is to take classes in the humanities seriously. One reason for this is that if you take classes in literature and poetry and understand how to describe feelings and emotions, you can then take the dry mathematics that you learn in physics class and then connected them with the feeling.

A lot of people get interested in astrophysics and astronomy by reading Sagan and/or Hawking or science fiction like Star Trek or Doctor Who. What's interesting is that at some point, you have to stop reading and start writing. Sagan called Cosmos "A Personal Voyage", and every astronomer or astrophysics takes their own personal voyage through space and time. Humanities classes help you describe your voyage to other people, but also to yourself.

And not all of the feelings are spiritual or uplifting. My view of the universe is somewhat cold, depressing, and more than a little angry. (see The Cold Equations by Tom Godwin or The Star by Arthur C Clarke to see how nasty the universe could be). Still it's a feeling.

I suppose a lot of it was fueled by being exposed to remarkably clear night skies and having the telescope out, there is something mesmerizing about seeing a dot in the sky but looking at it in a telescope and you see the rings of Saturn or the spot of Jupiter.

For me, there is something mesmerizing about seeing a dot in the sky. Looking really closely and then still seeing a dot. What are you? Imagine being in a totally dark room and then seeing a dot of light. You walk toward the dot of light, because you see nothing else. But the light never changes. You still walk toward the light, and then you start keeping careful notes about brightness, color, angular size. You don't stare at the light, because it's really, really faint and if you look at it directly it disappears because the sensitive parts of your eye are in the corner. You keep walking. The light seems to move, but you realize that this is an illusion because you close your eyes for a few seconds at a time, and the light seems still.

You keep walking toward the light. Days, months, years, decades pass, and you still don't know what that light is. It's still a mystery, but you just keep walking toward it. By walking at a different angles, you've established that the light is very far away and that you'll never reach it. But you still keep walking toward it knowing that you probably will die without understanding what it is.

That sort of describes my world, and it's different from Sagan's, or Hawking's, or Asimov's, or Rodenberry's, or Sydney Newman's, or Russell Davies's, or Stephen Moffat's.

Also, one thing that I find fascinating about astrophysics is that once you know just a little about it, then the ordinary becomes extra-ordinary. Let's forget a moment about the stars in the sky and look at the black void between the stars. The black void really shouldn't be there. (see Olber's Paradox) Once you realize *why* this black void just shouldn't be there, then you get chills down your spine every time you look at the night sky, or at least I do, and then you look closely at the sky, and then you realize that the sky is on fire (see Cosmic Microwave Background) and you can watch the heavens burn and smell their ashes.

Then seeing the images from Hubble of nebulae and galaxy clusters, especially the deep field image, it invokes a feeling of awe and inspiration to understand how these things came to be and the physics behind it.

Maybe. For me seeing those images makes me sad, depressed, and angry. One problem with physics is that I can hand you the apple, but you have to choose whether or not to bite into it, and once you bite into the apple, I can't control what you end up seeing, and what you might make you wish you had never bitten into the apple. When I look at the Hubble deep field images of galaxies, I see death and the destruction of world. You are watching stars die, you are watching the entire universe die. You look at the temperature curve of the universe. It's like looking at the cooling rate of a corpse. Same thermodynamics.

And there there is fear...

Let's go back to the point of light. What I just described of me walking forever toward the unknown light is a fragment of a dream, but it's not a nightmare. I may spend my entire life walking toward a point of light in the sky without never really understanding what it is, but that doesn't frighten me. Where the fragment of a dream turns into a fragment of a nightmare is just moments before I take my last breath and can walk no longer toward the faint point of light in the sky. For no reason at all, it disappears...
 
The black void really shouldn't be there. (see Olber's Paradox) Once you realize *why* this black void just shouldn't be there, then you get chills down your spine every time you look at the night sky

Poetic, but I'm not sure I follow you. I looked at Olber's Paradox, and I think it's been conclusively shown that the universe is not a static model of infinite age. So why should the black void not exist?
 
Angry Citizen said:
Poetic, but I'm not sure I follow you. I looked at Olber's Paradox, and I think it's been conclusively shown that the universe is not a static model of infinite age. So why should the black void not exist?

Once you ask the question and work on it, you'll get an answer. It took about a hundred years between the time the question was asked and we had a conclusive answer.

But the answer is a bit disturbing if you think about it. If the universe is not static and not infinite, then that implies that things must live and things must die, and the blackness of space is a constant reminder of death, which I try not to think about too much.

One other thing is that my "vision of the universe" is also very heavily influenced by HP Lovecraft and P.K. Dick. One of the things that I like about Lovecraft's horror stories is that he gets his science (including his astrophysics) right. But if the universe is more Lovecraft/Dick and less Sagan/Hawking/Roddenberry, then you have to ask "do you really want to know how the universe works?"

Then again there is the scene with Rutger Hauer from Bladerunner... I've seen things you people could not believe...
 
  • #10
twofish, if you ever wrote a novel/story, I'd buy it.
 
  • #11
twofish-quant said:
Once you ask the question and work on it, you'll get an answer. It took about a hundred years between the time the question was asked and we had a conclusive answer.

But the answer is a bit disturbing if you think about it. If the universe is not static and not infinite, then that implies that things must live and things must die, and the blackness of space is a constant reminder of death, which I try not to think about too much.

One other thing is that my "vision of the universe" is also very heavily influenced by HP Lovecraft and P.K. Dick. One of the things that I like about Lovecraft's horror stories is that he gets his science (including his astrophysics) right. But if the universe is more Lovecraft/Dick and less Sagan/Hawking/Roddenberry, then you have to ask "do you really want to know how the universe works?"

Then again there is the scene with Rutger Hauer from Bladerunner... I've seen things you people could not believe...

I do see what you mean. The finiteness of the universe is very bleak. At some point in the future, either through heat death or a cyclical universe, existence as we know it will end and there will be nothing but void. Frightening.
 
  • #12
Mmm_Pasta said:
twofish, if you ever wrote a novel/story, I'd buy it.

I'm more interested in getting people to write their own stories. I've taken a lot of writing classes and been good friends with published science fiction writers, but I find it difficult to write myself because a) I don't have time and b) my own writing depresses me, which defeats the purpose.

People will see different things when they look at the universe. This is good. If you look at the sky and see rainbows and unicorns and candy covered heart shaped chocolates, that's great! I'd like to read some of your stuff when I'm in a bad mood.

One reason this comes up is writing is writing, and a lot of scientific writing follows the same principles as fiction writing. Writing a scientific paper isn't that different from writing a short story or newspaper article, and you end with things that are funny, tragic, and surprising. Also doing a good talk at a conference is a lot like doing stand up comedy (with hecklers). (Two galaxies walk a bar...) This is why it's important to take humanities courses seriously (although humanities professors can suck the life out of a humanities course as much as an awful physics professor).

Also, a lot of the reason this comes up is that I'm watching series six of Doctor Who, and in watching Doctor Who I'm looking at how Stephen Moffat sees the universe. Being the curious person that I am, he takes me on the ride, and after it's done, I'm looking at it very closely at what he did. One of the themes of series six is how "childish wonder" (i.e. Amelia Pond in the Eleventh Hour) deals with the fact that universe is quite a dangerous and scary place, and how people that promise adventure and the chance to travel in space and time (i.e. the eleventh Doctor or my dissertation adviser or me) have out of necessity a darker and much less sympathetic side.

There is one episode "The Girl Who Waited" and in looking at one of the characters there (the old Amy Pond), I was thinking to myself "bitter and angry astrophysics Ph.D" and I sure as hell wouldn't have given the speech she gave at the end of the episode, but then again I'm not her.

Getting back to "boring professors" one reason I've found that faculty "suck the life" out of the courses that they teach is that they've gotten their enjoyment sucked out of them. If you talk to a lot of faculty, you'll find that deep down, they have all sorts of negative emotions (i.e. anger, bitterness, despair, arrogance, hopelessness) and this comes out in their lectures. You can keep it from coming out by drawing a blank face and not letting any emotion show through, but then you end up with something extremely dry and uninteresting.

The way that I've dealt with this is by putting my own emotions into the course. So you have a professor give a dry, boring, dead lecture. That's fine. Just give me the skeleton, and I'll put the "spark of life" into the material with my own feelings. You watch Star Trek or Doctor Who and then take that feeling and then the dull stuff that the professor teaches suddenly comes alive.
 
  • #13
Interesting, I can see your passion.
I see it as a way of discovering, as in discovering life and new phenomenons.
What makes us so important when our sun is only 1 out of the billion of other stars in our galaxy. Some of those stars can have planets like our own. It would be remarkable if we did find life out there, especially intelligence.
I also like studying and reading about astronomy because space is so vast. I also believe that there has to be a creator. If you look at this analogy, who created paintings? Artists! Who created buildings and bridges? Engineers! Who then created the stars, planets and the universe? So there has to be a creator. Why are stars millions of lightyears apart from each other? Is there a purpose why it was made this way? The long distances restricts for us from venturing there and there should be a reason why stars and galaxy are lightyears apart. Maybe there is a knowledge beyond out there, a key, to unlocking to why we have consciousness, life and the universe.
I like studying the stars because as you see stars at night, that one star your looking at is probably millions of lightyears away but you know it's there and you can see it even though its a million light years away from you.
 
  • #14
CrossFit415 said:
I also believe that there has to be a creator. If you look at this analogy, who created paintings? Artists! Who created buildings and bridges? Engineers! Who then created the stars, planets and the universe? So there has to be a creator.
You are headed down the road of infinite regression. If your world-view requires a "creator", then who created the creator? Just askin'...
 
  • #15
And when you study the stars and the galaxies, your personal problems and the world problems becomes 0.000000000001% compared to the universe. Say when your on planets in our closest star system, Alpha Centauri (which is 20 lightyrs away) you forget about Earth... Dont know if this mkes sense but that's how I see it.
 
  • #16
turbo said:
You are headed down the road of infinite regression. If your world-view requires a "creator", then who created the creator? Just askin'...

I don't know. Maybe the Creator was just there in the beginning and before the beginning..
Somethings that we can't measure but our intuition knows that it's there.
Such as seeing black holes (is due after a collapse of a fallen star) through the use of technology, but what are the substance that make up a black hole? We don't know because we can't go near one. What goes inside one? a singularity? incalculable information due to an infinity? I believe the same concept applies to the Creator.
 
  • #17
I don't know. Maybe the Creator was just there in the beginning and before the beginning..

Why can't the universe just be there in the beginning and before the beginning? Seriously, nothing about a creator exempts him from your logic. It is quite foolproof. In a finite universe, how did the universe come to be? It's a paradox; one that God is infinitely incapable of solving.
 
  • #18
Let's not go into a religious argument here. Get back on topic and answer the OP's question.
 
  • #19
micromass said:
Let's not go into a religious argument here. Get back on topic and answer the OP's question.

It should be noted here that lots of people get into astrophysics or religious or quasi-religious reasons.
 
  • #20
CrossFit415 said:
And when you study the stars and the galaxies, your personal problems and the world problems becomes 0.000000000001% compared to the universe. Say when your on planets in our closest star system, Alpha Centauri (which is 20 lightyrs away) you forget about Earth... Dont know if this mkes sense but that's how I see it.

This is an interesting example of how different people can see the universe in different ways. Alpha Centauri has the same rules of physics as the earth, so that when I look at the stars, I see my personal problems and issues because the same rules of physics apply. Stars die for roughly the same reasons that people do. Also we figured out that there is a problem with greenhouse gases from Venus. One other thing is that if you have a career that involves astrophysics then suddenly whenever you look at a galaxy, you can't help but think about grant proposals and office politics.

One other thing is that sometimes things become less mysterious and maybe less wonderous once you have some understanding of them. When it comes down to it, stars and planets are extremely simple things, and there is no more or less need for any supernatural intelligence than you need for one to create a rainbow or soap bubble. For that matter, you can look at the entire universe in a way that is incredibly simple. The basic equations for the universe can be written in two lines.

Now you could argue that God creates stars in the same way that God creates rainbows, but that's not what I think most people mean by creation.

Getting back to Doctor Who. There is this wonderful dialogue from the DVD extra...

http://monanotlisa.dreamwidth.org/1037285.html
http://eve11.livejournal.com/543853.html

D: I'm nine hundred and seven. After a while, you just can't see it.

A: See what?

D: Everything! I look at a star and it's just a big ball of burning gas. And I know how it began, and I know how it ends, and I was probably there both times. Now, after a while, everything is just stuff! That's the problem. You make all of space and time your back yard, and what do you have? A back yard.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Mépris said:
I'm always a little baffled, whenever I see people talking about their "fascination" with astronomy. I never saw the "big deal"...

Surely providing better explanations for the structure of the universe is a "big deal"? The ancients had no idea that stars were other suns, or the Earth just another planet. Surely the account of how these things were discovered is fascinating?

If you don't see these things as "fascinating", then fair enough, people are different. Everyone has their blanks - having just listened to Professor Brian Cox on Desert Island Disks, I realize that one of his blanks is classical music! How can he find all that bland electro-pop fascinating? (Or is that my blank?!)

What do you think is a big deal, what do you find fascinating?
 
  • #22
Love your Doctor Who remarks twofish, been hooked on this show recently (even just bought a tshirt and I don't wear tshirts).
 
  • #23
Astronomy/Astrophysics makes me feel like a child. I love reading about other planets or learning about space travel/expansion. My imagination just seems to soar into crazy "what if" scenarios as I read more and more.
 
  • #24
mal4mac said:
Surely providing better explanations for the structure of the universe is a "big deal"? The ancients had no idea that stars were other suns, or the Earth just another planet. Surely the account of how these things were discovered is fascinating?

People are different. Figuring out *why* people end up interested in topic A and not topic B is an interesting exercise in human psychology. It's something that physicists aren't particular good at, but politicians, marketing people and screenwriters are. One reason that I'm talking a lot about pop culture is that pop culture is essential for shaping how people think and feel, and movies, television, and youtube influences how everything works.

One of the things that got me into astrophysics was Carl Sagan's book Cosmos, but it took maybe a decade or so to realize that he got something in his book, very, very, very wrong. His view of the brain is that you have the "reptile brain" and then higher centers in the cerebrum, and that the reptile brain is dangerous and will get us all killed through nuclear war, and that people need to not listen to the "reptile brain" and focus on the higher "thinking parts" of the brain. Curiously this is also the sort of (incredibly wrong) philosophy that underlies Star Wars (note to Lucas, hate and anger are not always bad things).

The problem with this view of the world is that the "sense of wonder" comes from the reptile brain since it's that part of the brain that controls motivation. Without the reptile brain, you just get boring lectures and people in rooms talking with each other about stuff that no one cares about (which is why the Phantom Menace was just an awful movie).
 
  • #25
Chunkysalsa said:
Love your Doctor Who remarks twofish, been hooked on this show recently (even just bought a tshirt and I don't wear tshirts).

One thing that's cool about Doctor Who is that it changes from year to year so when it starts getting stale, they change everything and you end up with something new and fresh. I got hooked with Tom Baker, and the stories were very different. One cool thing about DVD's and youtube is that you can pick what stories you like and which one's you don't, and create your own universe.

The thing that I like about the recent episodes, Stephen Moffat is writing a fairy tale in which the focus is on the human relationships and the "science" is merely a prop. It's not "hard science fiction" which focuses on the technology, and when there is some technical thing that gets in the way of the plot instead of inventing technobabble, they just say "timey-wimey" and it goes away. But even though he doesn't care about the technical parts, he gets the *romance* (and tragedy) of science right. Now, maybe I'm reading too much into the series, but you know you have a good storyteller when you are reading something and you are making up part of the story, and you find someone that you've never met (or who died several hundred years ago) talking about your life.

But it's all sad in a way. It's a little sad looking at Doctor Who and Star Trek conventions, because I remember when there was the same sort of enthusiasm for sending people into space in real life. So what happens when young Amelia Pond sits on her suitcase looking at the skies, and then realizes that he isn't coming back for her?
 
  • #26
I didn't expect the thread to wind up becoming as entertaining and interesting as it did. Thanks a lot for your replies.

I'll reserve judgement until I've taken a few classes on the topic. For what it's worth though, particle astro looks cool.
 
  • #27
Yes very interesting indeed and you should take interest.

Astronomy is interesting due to what the what ifs. Such as what if astronomers find intelligent life in the vastness of space?
If that were to happen, our whole perception would greatly change, from the way we see life, to how we view ourselves socially, and everything involve in life! That's what's really exciting about studying astronomy.
And I know well that there is life out there we just can't find them yet.
Take this analogy, say I go into a restaurant and I order a lobster however, I decide that I'm going to wait for my lobster to walk from the 2 mile beach to my plate. Would the lobster just show up on my plate? No. And this applies to space exploration. Just because something is absent doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because we don't see intelligent life out there, doesn't mean we can disregard and conclude that they don't exist. It's just a matter of finding them.
 
  • #28
CrossFit415 said:
Astronomy is interesting due to what the what ifs. Such as what if astronomers find intelligent life in the vastness of space?

It's equally mind-blowing if astronomers figure out that there is *NO* intelligent life outside of the Earth in the vastness of space and we are it.

And I know well that there is life out there we just can't find them yet.

No particular reason to believe that. It's quite possible that there is some sort of bottleneck that makes life outside of Earth unlikely/impossible. One thing that has surprised people about exoplanets is that it appears that solar systems with nice circular orbits are the exception rather than the norm.

And this applies to space exploration. Just because something is absent doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because we don't see intelligent life out there, doesn't mean we can disregard and conclude that they don't exist. It's just a matter of finding them.

Or not finding them. We are going to be in a lot better position to figure out the probability of life in the next ten years as we get more data on exoplanets. It's not out of the question that a decade from now, it will be established that planets similar to Earth are extremely, extremely rare. Conversely, if we find undisputed examples of microfossils on Mars that's going to change the probabilities of life. On the other hand, if we establish that Mars had at one point earth-like conditions (liquid water, thick atmosphere), and life *didn't* develop, that's also going to change things.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
twofish-quant said:
It's equally mind-blowing if astronomers figure out that there is *NO* intelligent life outside of the Earth in the vastness of space and we are it.
That can't possibly be proven. The best we can say is "not yet". Science doesn't work by trying to prove negatives.
 
  • #30
I recently watched a movie that said that Mars might of had earth-like conditions, but it's magnetic field died out. The magnetic field deflects charged particles coming from the sun. Without a magnetic field, the charged particles can hit the Earth and kil life.
 
  • #31
twofish-quant said:
It's equally mind-blowing if astronomers figure out that there is *NO* intelligent life outside of the Earth in the vastness of space and we are it.



No particular reason to believe that. It's quite possible that there is some sort of bottleneck that makes life outside of Earth unlikely/impossible. One thing that has surprised people about exoplanets is that it appears that solar systems with nice circular orbits are the exception rather than the norm.



Or not finding them. We are going to be in a lot better position to figure out the probability of life in the next ten years as we get more data on exoplanets. It's not out of the question that a decade from now, it will be established that planets similar to Earth are extremely, extremely rare. Conversely, if we find undisputed examples of microfossils on Mars that's going to change the probabilities of life. On the other hand, if we establish that Mars had at one point earth-like conditions (liquid water, thick atmosphere), and life *didn't* develop, that's also going to change things.

But you also have to consider that there are a billion stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way alone. And there are also many other galaxies that are 200 billion light years apart from each other which also contain many many stars. As we observe our own solar system, our nine planets completely vary from one another. Apply this to other stars, and stars may completely have different planets and orbits from ours. Therefore it would be ignorant of us to say there are no harboring planets that contain life in them.
Considering that, astronomers have already found an earth-like planet which is 600 light years away. This ups our chance of discovering life.
And our bottleneck is in the technologies. We can't travel at the speed of light.. yet. (Critics said we couldn't fly, the world was flat, we couldn't go more than 60 MPH without melting). Well, we'll be able to travel at those speeds ..at least.. equivlant to light but not today, not tomorrow but soon. It's just going to take time.
And yes, Mars is our foundation and our stepping stone.
 
  • #32
CrossFit415 said:
But you also have to consider that there are a billion stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way alone.

It's in fact 100 billion.

Therefore it would be ignorant of us to say there are no harboring planets that contain life in them.

There could be a massive bottle neck that could prevent life or intelligent life. One thing about astrophysics is that you stop being impressed by large numbers. It's possible that the development of life requires some freak event that can occur in one in ten trillion planets. Or not. We'll have a better idea in a few years.

And our bottleneck is in the technologies. We can't travel at the speed of light.. yet. (Critics said we couldn't fly, the world was flat, we couldn't go more than 60 MPH without melting).

So what?

Critics also say that you can't trisect an angle with a ruler and a compass, and you can't.

The fact that people were wrong about X and Y doesn't tell you anything about Z.
 
  • #33
turbo said:
That can't possibly be proven. The best we can say is "not yet". Science doesn't work by trying to prove negatives.

Prove is maybe an overstatement.

You can establish probabilistic limits. I can't absolutely prove that there isn't the ghost of a dinosaur outside my office door ready to eat me, but I can give you good reasons why it's unlikely. We can already set some limits as to how likely intelligent life that actively send radio waves receivable from Earth is.

Also, it's important to realize that "when you don't know, then you don't know."
 
  • #34
twofish-quant said:
It's in fact 100 billion.



There could be a massive bottle neck that could prevent life or intelligent life. One thing about astrophysics is that you stop being impressed by large numbers. It's possible that the development of life requires some freak event that can occur in one in ten trillion planets. Or not. We'll have a better idea in a few years.



So what?

Critics also say that you can't trisect an angle with a ruler and a compass, and you can't.

The fact that people were wrong about X and Y doesn't tell you anything about Z.

So what? So we can use that technology to our advantage. And that discovery might lead to unforeseen discoveries and then lead to even more discoveries.
Im giving examples of the past, of how our very own minds can inhibit ourselves, inhibit us from moving foward due to ignorance and fear, and preventing us from capturing that knowledge.
Fine examples are "you would fall off the Earth if you traveled too far." Point is, we can learn from the past. 50 years from now we'll go back to this thread and start laughing when we see vehicles traveling at the speed of light or least near it.
We can't conclude that we're special and we're a freak of nature. Remember about that analogy I said earlier about the lobster? Just because that lobster's not going to walk up to your plate for you to eat from that beach, doesn't mean that lobsters seize to exist
 
  • #35
CrossFit415 said:
So what? So we can use that technology to our advantage. And that discovery might lead to unforeseen discoveries and then lead to even more discoveries.
Im giving examples of the past, of how our very own minds can inhibit ourselves, inhibit us from moving foward due to ignorance and fear, and preventing us from capturing that knowledge.
Fine examples are "you would fall off the Earth if you traveled too far." Point is, we can learn from the past. 50 years from now we'll go back to this thread and start laughing when we see vehicles traveling at the speed of light or least near it.
We can't conclude that we're special and we're a freak of nature. Remember about that analogy I said earlier about the lobster? Just because that lobster's not going to walk up to your plate for you to eat from that beach, doesn't mean that lobsters seize to exist

We can't say it, but we can't say otherwise either.
I really don't like the idea that "there are too many stars, so there must be life out there", it's a nice argument to give to your friends in a casual talk, but it's logically flawed.
Yes, maybe the universe is swarming with life, but we have no reason to conclude that, yet.
 
  • #36
CrossFit415 said:
We can't conclude that we're special and we're a freak of nature.

Correct. We can't conclude we're special. We can't also conclude we aren't. When you don't know, then you don't know. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is also not evidence of non-absence.

When you don't know, then you don't know.

Now the cool thing is that we'll know a lot more about the situation shortly (i.e. next ten years). If we find large numbers of Earth like planets, and evidence of previous life on Mars, that makes life much more likely. Within my lifetime, we will likely be able to detect atmospheric signs of life around exoplanets at that point we can do statistics for the likelihood of life. It's possible that we find that the universe is teeming with life.

It's also possible that we find that life requires close to impossible things to happen. We find the earth-like planets are rare, and that the atmospheric spectra are consistent with no-life.

I'm not concluding that the we are a freak of nature, I'm just pointing out that as of 2012, this is a possibility.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
There's certainly no need for a creator in all this. But just remember for those who believe in one -- he/she/it would probably be classed as a scientist or engineer, and he/she/it would therefore probably frown upon any individual that didn't critically question he/she/it's existence. Belief and faith are just other words for ignorance and servitude. Question everything.

As for how many of us got to become astronomers and astrophysicists...
- Realise, as a child, that there is wonder in everything around you.
- Learn to separate fact from myth and wishful thinking.
- Then, of course, there is Star Trek and Dr Who :-) !
- And, not to forget the programs of the late and great Carl Sagan.
- It does help to live away from the big city. Those of us in the Southern Hemisphere see a much more dazzling array of stars, nebulae, dust clouds, etc, as we can see the main disk of the Galaxy, through to the Galactic Centre.
- Learn (teach yourself) some basic science, electronics and computing (as well as cooking, car mechanics, etc :-), then specialise in a bit more physics at high school and university.
- Get to look through a few major OPTICAL telescopes for a bit of fun.
- Study astronomy (or specialise in it) at uni -- that's still fun :-).
- Later go across to astrophysics when you want to really work out what we think is going on. This is where it all 'comes together'!
- Plus run a few major RADIO telescopes and analyse data to visualise the universe in other wavelengths (the stars are really quite boring -- it's the stuff you don't see that is doing extraordinary things, and that is way more dangerous and exciting).
- PS: Learn to use computers for what they were meant for (not videos, Facebook, games, chat rooms and other frivolous pursuits). We have more computing power at our fingertips than any other humans in the history of the planet -- and it's fun to make the 'beasts' crawl by programming them to solve huge (humungus! :-) problems. When you do astrophysics you will find yourself often pushing our technology to the limits. How better to disprove :-) the myths and self-interested prophecies of the last few thousand years! Then again you could just eat a Snickers, sit in front of your games machine, get fat, have a coronary, and die as ignorant a death as most of our ancestors. What a waste! :-)

Live, learn and make the World (nay, the Universe) a better and less ignorant place!

That's my 2 cents worth anyway LOL!

Live long and Prosper! :-)
 
  • #38
DarkPhysics said:
- PS: Learn to use computers for what they were meant for (not videos, Facebook, games, chat rooms and other frivolous pursuits). We have more computing power at our fingertips than any other humans in the history of the planet -- and it's fun to make the 'beasts' crawl by programming them to solve huge (humungus! :-) problems. When you do astrophysics you will find yourself often pushing our technology to the limits. How better to disprove :-) the myths and self-interested prophecies of the last few thousand years! Then again you could just eat a Snickers, sit in front of your games machine, get fat, have a coronary, and die as ignorant a death as most of our ancestors. What a waste! :-)

Live, learn and make the World (nay, the Universe) a better and less ignorant place!

That's my 2 cents worth anyway LOL!

Live long and Prosper! :-)

how do astrophysics contribute to today technology? i know it does, but wouldn't applied science and engineering push the advancement of new technology much more so than physics (or astrophysics). i also think studying biology is probably more useful than 99% of the problems in theoretical physics.
 
  • #39
i had an inherent love towards physics. i started reading books, articles, etc on astronomy and astrophysics and after that when i looked at the stars, what struck me was that we are always looking back into time. we can never know what is happening presently with an interstellar body which is any distance beyond the solar system.
 
  • #40
Hi, Mépris. Although I'm not "into" astronomy/astrophysics in the sense that I'm currently studying them, received my degree and am working in the field, or plan on studying either in the future. However, I do find their concepts and points of interest intriguing on a more casual level, if that makes sense. So, in that sense, I'm "into" them. :smile:

I am fascinated by the sheer scale of things in our universe. I love watching NOVA specials on black holes, gamma ray bursts, etc. When I think about our (Earth's) position in all of this, I get a strong feeling of helplessness. But even that isn't completely accurate in describing what I feel. It just feels, sorta, scary/intimidating. I now risk babbling incoherently, so I'll stop. :redface:
 
  • #41
facetten said:
how do astrophysics contribute to today technology? i know it does, but wouldn't applied science and engineering push the advancement of new technology much more so than physics (or astrophysics). i also think studying biology is probably more useful than 99% of the problems in theoretical physics.

It's a question we always get from the general public. Here's just a couple of ways in which astronomy and astrophysics have impacted (and are still having an impact) on our world at present:

- Astrophysics spawned the filed of High-Energy Physics when a physicist (Victor Hess), some 100 years ago, discovered that the Earth is being bombarded by ultra-high energy particles from space. In order to work out how these particles are created and interact, and the make-up of matter in the Universe several generations of particle accelerators had to be developed (from linear accelerators, now used in many hospitals, to the new Large Hadron Collider). The masses of information from these experiments had to be moved around the globe quickly, and also required mass storage systems; hence, the scientists had to develop high-speed Internet and cheap mass storage devices. These things weren't developed to help people play games or movies on their computers. When I first started there were no pictures or movies on the Internet; it was a network where scientists and the like communicated with each other around the Globe. The general public were not online.

- Recently, some colleagues of mine at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) developed and patented the IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g Wi-Fi technology that is now in use all over the World. Your own computer would use that technology right now.

- Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner were developed from the equipment and imaging techniques developed for radio astronomy by astronomers and astrophysicists.

- High speed supercomputers were needed to simulate the birth and development of stars. They also happen to be good for CGI movies (like Avatar, or even more complex titles), and to model airplane/spaceship development, financial systems, or the environment (Global Warming calculations, etc)...

As I am also an engineer I can tell you that applied scientists and engineers develop the technology further -- but without the basic science they would just be reinventing or re-jigging different versions of the same old technology. Yet (often) without these guys, those in research would suffer. eg. Scientist discovered the properties of semiconductors and studied thin-film magnetism and magnetic domains, all well and good; but then someone with foresight and imagination (plus some financial backing) used this knowledge to develop integrated circuit chips and floppy/hard disks -- these then used by the scientists to 'push the envelope' out further, while the engineers and applied 'boys' optimise and build on the technology. It's, in a way, a symbiotic relationship. Some of us do both, basic research and development, but we are often limited by a limited lifespan, the need for sleep, and an economic system that tries to slot us into little compartmentalised boxes, and fund us thus - 'You're a scientist... while she/he is an engineer... while those people are artists..., etc', and each of you will be treated differently. Hundreds of years ago (da Vinci's time, say), they would call themselves artists, but they had the skills of art, science, engineering, etc. Oh, for the good old days! :-) A friend of mine called it Rampant Credentialism; where you need a piece of paper from a university before you will be allowed to work on a specific project. In days gone by you would be assessed on your potential, not just your academic achievements. Anyway, the limited lifespan argument leads me to conclude that I have said to much already and should be getting back to my own work. Cheers all! (I will include another little note to help out those about to enter in the field, below.)
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Just a quick (hopefully) note for those studying astronomy/astrophysics. The following 2 books should probably be recommended resources for all students:

Astronomy Methods
Astrophysics Concepts

They are absolutely easy to read and elegantly written. Both written by Hale Bradt in the last few years, they are the closest thing to having a (patient! :-) astronomer or astrophysicist supervisor sitting next to you to explain how the equipment, techniques and science really works. Superb books! I have found them absolutely invaluable. And 'no' I don't have any vested interests other than ensuring that we get well informed 'new blood' into the field. Longair is another author of choice for higher level research, but don't go past Bradt for undergraduate studies. Cheers!
 
Last edited:
  • #43
CrossFit415 said:
I don't know. Maybe the Creator was just there in the beginning and before the beginning..
Somethings that we can't measure but our intuition knows that it's there.
Such as seeing black holes (is due after a collapse of a fallen star) through the use of technology, but what are the substance that make up a black hole? We don't know because we can't go near one. What goes inside one? a singularity? incalculable information due to an infinity? I believe the same concept applies to the Creator.

That is a good point but unlike that in black holes, believing in a Creator would transcend our knowledge of all known levels of existence. I mean, though the black holes are still a mystery, we do have visual proof that they exist. Also, the big problem would be figuring out how the Creator created matter and energy and what happened thereafter
 
Back
Top