ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Science with the stars

Posted: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:43 PM by Alan Boyle


Paul E. Alers / NASA via AP file
Stephen Hawking, shown here during a 2008
lecture, made a virtual appearance at Arizona
State University's Origins Symposium.

Who says scientists aren't party animals? Thousands turned out this week to watch some of the world's best-known scientists let their hair down at Arizona State University's Origins Symposium.

Monday's public party was organized by ASU theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss to inaugurate the university's Origins Initiative, a multidisciplinary program focusing on scientific explanations for the beginnings of life, the universe and everything (including consciousness and culture).

A theme like that can be deadly serious - and deadly dull as well. But Krauss brought in the brightest luminaries of the scientific set to add sparkle to the discussion.

Some sparkled even though they couldn't be there in the flesh: British physicist Stephen Hawking, who is arguably the world's biggest science celebrity, was stuck in California under his doctors' care due to a chest infection. (This sort of thing has happened before, and the medical condition is not expected to be life-threatening.)

To make up for his physical absence, Hawking put in a "virtual appearance" via an audiovisual slideshow that featured his trademark robotic voice - and his equally trademark wit. "My doctors have insisted that I do not fly," he said, "so I thought about getting some new doctors."

The theme of his talk was a familiar one: why humans should set up settlements in outer space. Hawking sketched out a long-term strategy that involved setting up a base on the moon around 2020 and sending a human mission to Mars around 2025 - which is a more ambitious timetable than the one NASA currently has in mind.

Hawking acknowledged that many saw human spaceflight as something of a "wild goose chase," but he said the same thing could have been said about Christopher Columbus' voyages to the Americas. "Spreading out into space will have a greater effect," he argued. "It will completely change the future."

He bemoaned the fact that NASA's budget has declined as a share of U.S. gross domestic product from 0.75 percent in the heyday of the '60s to 0.12 percent today - and implied that doubling the budget would make a good start toward the goals he had in mind. "Isn't our future worth a quarter of a percent?" he asked.

The twists that made the presentation special weren't just the deep thoughts, but the light banter as well. For example, Hawking drew big laughs from the audience of 3,000 when he explained why he didn't put much credence in reports of flying saucers ("Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdos?") or why he thought the emergence of intelligent life occurred only rarely ("Some would say it has yet to occur once").

Wonder and wit were whipped together in Monday's other presentations as well:

Discussing life's origins in a Hawaiian shirt
One of the day's other headliners was British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who dressed down for a conversation with Paul Davies, a deep-thinking physicist and biologist at ASU. "I don't get a chance to wear my Hawaiian shirt at Oxford," Dawkins explained.


msnbc.com
  Biologist Richard Dawkins sports
  a Hawaiian shirt in Arizona.

The talk turned to one of the biggest scientific mysteries on Earth: How did the DNA-based machinery of life get started? "DNA must have been put together by something like Darwinian natural selection," Dawkins speculated. But even RNA, the presumed precursor to DNA, is so complex that it seems unlikely to have arisen spontaneously. "This has been called the Catch-22 of the origins of life. ... Somehow we've got to think of a way around that Catch-22."

Religious believers might say "God did it" and leave it at that. That's definitely not Dawkins' style: He's been an outspoken champion of scientific skepticism and atheism. On Monday, however, Dawkins didn't want to spoil the party mood. He steered clear of talking about religion, even when a questioner tried to draw him out.

My son, the Ph.D.?
Religion came up in a different context when Krauss sat down with Columbia string theorist Brian Greene. In the past, the two physicists have clashed over whether string theory might provide the answer to physics' ultimate questions, but their encounter on Monday was more like a personal chat than a debate. At one point, they discussed how they grew up to be scientists, and Krauss recalled that "Mom wanted me to be a doctor."

"Are you Jewish?" Greene asked. "Yeah," came Krauss' answer. "Me too," Greene said.

They also traded ammunition for future debates. In the past, Krauss has said string theory seemed to be headed toward becoming a "theory of nothing," but on Monday he told Greene, "it's the best bet at this point."

Greene looked offstage and said, "Technical crew, can you just cut out that snippet and send it to me?"

As the conversation continued, Krauss said the state of string theory was really too unsettled to merit using the word "theory" (a scientific term that has long been misunderstood by non-scientists). "I'd agree with that," Greene said. Then it was Krauss' turn to check with the sound crew. "Could we get that?" he asked.

Scientific stars galore
Monday's party lasted for more than 12 hours, and it'd probably take that long to recount all the highlights. Here are just a few more samples of the scientific star power:

  • Harvard neuroscientist Steven Pinker explored the "cognitive niche" that humanity occupies in the scheme of things. Through the millennia, humans found that they could use technological know-how to counter the stronger foes they faced. But there's an evolutionary cost to our big brains, which may help explain why other species haven't horned in on our cognitive niche. "With this big bobblehead balanced on top of a vertical body, it's almost a recipe for disaster," Pinker said.

  • ASU paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson focused on the critical points of human evolution - beginning with our ancestors' divergence from other primates at least 6 million years ago, running through the age of the australopiths (like "Lucy," the 3.2-million-year-old fossil he found 35 years ago), and continuing with the emergence of modern humans about 150,000 years ago. All these key transitions occurred in Africa, he noted. "Every single one of us in this room is an African," he told the crowd of thousands.

  • Geneticist J. Craig Venter talked about his project to create a synthetic genome - a challenge he said was more difficult than his past efforts to decode the human genome. It's the difference between reading and writing, he said. Eventually, pieces of genetic code could be used as standard components to build the molecular-scale factories of the future. "I think this is going to be the start of one of the most exciting phases of biology, because this can affect the world around us," he said. "We are using these, for example, to make artificial fuels from CO2 and sunlight.

But wait ... there's more to come: The Origins Symposium also featured a panel of Nobel laureates who looked ahead to the frontiers of physics and biology, as well as a gathering of science-savvy communicators who reflected on the sometimes sad, sometimes wonderful state of science literacy. We'll delve into those subjects in future postings.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

This is all quite funny to us creationists. All the questions about origins can be answered quite easily, but Dawkins and crew don't want to hear our answers or even talk fairly with us. Hmmm... too bad.
Thanks Alan for another great update from the Origins Symposium.  I especially enjoyed Stephen Hawking's "second opinion" quip.  Good to see that scientists aren't all stuffy and that they do have a wonderful sense of humor.

Personally I'm glad that the scientists haven't figured out everything because then we wouldn't experience the joys of new discoveries about how and why we're here.  I do think that they will solve the RNA-DNA origins question and hopefully they'll do it in my lifetime.  I know the answer won't be that some imaginary being did it.

I'm definitely with Stephen Hawking in that we do not invest enough tax dollars in NASA and that we should increase NASA's budget.  I just hope that Obama will overturn that idiotic decision to go it alone to the Moon and Mars, we should partner with the world and do it together.  The International Space Station is a wonderful example of how countries can cooperate to achieve great advancements, well except for now that they're goofing around with who can go potty where.

In Science We Trust!
Wish I could be there in person, I would love to meet Richard Dawkins
I can't see how setting up settlements in outerspace will "save" the human race. We can't even get people to move inland where plenty of space is available. Besides that, it would be so boring no one would want to survive anyway. Then to compare it to Columbus' voyage to America? Please. Not even close. No, do not throw money away on that sci-fi dream. You can also throw in the origin of the Universe as another Catch-22. Origins will remain unsolvable. These guys can speculate but that is where it will remain.
I'm a creationist.  Dawkins managed to evade the religious trap questions.  And then, on this blog, the very first post just embarasses the heck out of me.  The only simple answers are "I don't know."  In those terms what Scott said is completely true.  Ask me anything.  I can answer any question.  That doesn't mean you'll walk away with more knowledge than you came with.  Scott, you're an enthusiastic poster.  Please see http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/03/1879843.aspx#comments
The wit and wisdom of Jason, Carlsbad.
I have a question, Scott.  Answer it even a little bit correctly and earn my respect.  Answer it the way you're going to and I'll point out why you're an idiot.  Dawkins and crew don't want to talk to us because "we" present the Bible like it's got an easy, meaningful answer to anything, and we present ourselves like we know what we're talking about when it comes to the Bible but we all to often don't.  Case in point.  How long did creation, as presented in Genesis, take?
Scott the creationist: "..All the questions about origins can be answered quite easily, but Dawkins and crew don't want to hear our answers or even talk fairly with us. Hmmm... too bad."

Ok, easily answer the question in scientific terms, why is it 'too bad"?

And also, why is intelligent design NOT creationism?

And, what evidence, other than the bible, do creationists use to uphold the believe that the earth is far far younger than 4.6 billion years old and that there was no pre-cambrian explosion of marine life some 600 million years ago and that the fossil record of all organisms is totally wrong in the interpretation of it by the science community.

That's just for starters.
creationism is only about trying to disprove natural selection, yes there still some questions about natural selection worthy of investigation! Creationism
has nothing to offer other than a bunch of non -coherrent babble...it give me a headache just to listen to you guys!!!
This is great!  I love being alive when I read of interludes like that between Greene and Krauss.  Do you know if they're planning to produce videos of the presentations?

[ALAN ADDS: I'm pretty sure they're going to make the videos available ... if they do so online, it will no doubt be through the Origins Web site, origins.asu.edu.]
It is not that they have not or will not listen to anything creationist have to say...they have listened, weighed the evidence and compared that to other similar theories and made a decision based on which was more likely to be true and what is supported by evidence (scientific evidence that is).  I believe this is what they call "reality".
Jesus asscended to heaven, and will return likewise.  How would he physically go to the second heaven, by UFO or enter another dimension
"I'm a creationist. ... Ask me anything.  I can answer any question."

If a creationist wants to give them a try, here are a few questions:
1. Why is the wavelength of light from some galaxies longer than that of other galaxies in a predictable correlation with the apparent distance from us?
2. Why do people get the hiccups?
3. Why do snakes sometimes have tiny legs, but most of the time do not?
"Ask me anything.  I can answer any question."

All/Most joking aside, one of the future physics experiments mentioned at the conference is the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). Funding could fall through and we still have to wait a long time even if it does happen. Tim, perhaps you would like to tell us what we would see if we had LISA running right now. It would save a lot of money and effort, and physicists would be willing to pay a lot of money to know. I will personally pay $1000 for any accurate and specific answer that physicists aren't already predicting.
Oran, here are the answers I guaranteed.
1. I don't know.
2. I don't know.
3. I don't know.
And for your second post,
I don't know.
Your creative editing aside, anyone expecting different answers might want to check out some remedial reading for comprehension classes.

For more real attempts, *not* those I guaranteed, here goes.  Note to the wise - I wouldn't take any of these to the bank.

1. Scattering of light by all the cosmic dust in the void.
2. Esophageal distress.  It's an attempt to clear the esophagus.
3. Genetic atrophy.  Sort of the opposite of random, spontaneous genetic variation leading to a new feature.  Here is an old feature that does not offer an advantage wasting away.
Lisa.  I'm not expecting too much from this.  I don't think it will have the sensativity to get the really cool information.  I do think this will advance our knowledge and experience in this field of investigation and experimentation and that one day we may be able to build on what we learn here.  Perhaps in a generation or two of experimental devices and/or technique we'll be able to tell when we feel the gravitational tug of a fast moving, near passing object and answer questions like is gravity a wave or a condition that exists across the universe now based on the location of mass now.  Personally I expect that gravity is a wave.  If you want to let them know.  But I wouldn't suspend investigation on my say.

Tim Rommes,

Scientific discovery comes from thinking outside of the box.  Creationism is a rock inside of the box. [...]

There are the answers to many questions on the website of Dr. Hugh Ross.www.reasonstobelieve.org.
He is the most intellegent and most believeable one of our great minds, in my estimation.
Jym,

I'm not sure what you mean.  Perhaps the edited portion shed more light, but from what's here ...

Scientific interpretation comes from thinking outside the box.  Actually, most interpretation comes from thinking outside the box.  A lot of our interpretation of other people is neither based on actual reality nor on that person's subjective reality, but on our own.  Meaning that rape victims see the signs of rape in other women whether they've been raped or not.  We're all highly attuned to see our own experience.  This manifests, "scientifically", in theories that are custom fit to particular results but can't be applied generally.  Most of these go quickly by the wayside.

All advancement, correct or not, comes from thinking outside the box.  If you only do what's already been done you never advance.  Unless you're walking.  Then it's just left right left right left right ...

And if by rock you mean that creationism is a steady foundation then I'm right there with you, brother!


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1884940

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google