0.1 --- Rationale
This will be a continually updated introductory
astronomy course that incorporates interactive content
via Javascript, SVG, and the HTML5 Canvas
feature. It may not correctly work across all browsers,
especially older versions of Internet Explorer on
Windows, but I'm writing and testing with the latest
builds of the Safari, Chrome, and Firefox browsers. It
should also now work on the latest IE 9.
Static figures are generated either with Blender 3D (a
free 3D modeling and animation application), Inkscape (a
free vector-based illustration package), or with the
LaTeX typesetting language and PGF (TiKZ) package. The
source files I used to generate the figures are freely
available should anyone be interested. Other images,
including photographic ones (like the astonishingly
beautiful one at left, thanks to Jim Richardson), were
shamelessly appropriated. I'll try to keep a page of
credits updated with links to the original sources.
Screenshots and animations of sky images are likely
taken from the (excellent) free software Stellarium.
Clicking on any image should show them at their full
resolution. All web page coding and design (including
simulation programming in Javascript) is done by me, by
hand, with the Vim editor, so I'll accept any due
consequences.
This collection of documents grew out of my teaching
notes that correspond only roughly to existing
textbooks. My motivations for writing this include:
- Prices for printed textbooks are becoming
prohibitive, especially for some students in
my community college setting. This free
text will relieve some of that financial
burden. Economic obstacles to learning
represent a deep injustice. Cost should not
discourage learning more about this
wonderful universe in which we're embedded.
This is the first sense of the title,
"The Accessible Universe".
- As is probably true for any instructor who
has been plying his or her craft for a
while, I have a certain favorite narrative
structure and sequence for the course that
doesn't map onto current texts very well.
This is more and more frustrating,
constraining, and awkward each term.
- I've become convinced that passively reading
a static text is a particularly
ineffective way to learn a new
subject compared to the new possibilities.
I'd like to try a new model where some
important topics are presented immediately
alongside small, simple, hopefully engaging
simulations that interactively teach the
point discussed. We seem to be at an
exciting new time in internet and computer
capabilities where it is finally possible to
write fast, embedded simulations in web
pages that run across many computing
platforms. This will be increasingly
crucial as the preferred mode of delivery of
internet content will be "webapps" on mobile
devices.
- There is an enormous advantage to
documents on the web in that somewhat
tangential (or, frankly, very standard)
material can be represented by hyperlinks to
other sites
(
Wikipedia,
say) instead of being included here. I can
then focus narrowly on my chosen set of
topics and coverage. An interested reader
can follow the links as they please to
satisfy any deeper and broader interests.
- An important goal of mine also is to foment
the impression that many phenomena in the
Universe really are understandable, and
these insights naturally lead us to deeper
explanations and questions. A recurring
theme will be "the Universe is telling us
something" --- if we are patient and
discerning and apply some of the knowledge
of physics we've discovered, the Universe
has left a series of clues that
anyone can follow to learn and
appreciate more of its history. Also, in
this sense, this really is "The
Accessible Universe".
"The Accessible Universe", then, is the title
that effectively conveys my feelings about astronomy
education --- it ought to be freely accessible by
anyone, and the grand ideas themselves should be
intellectually accessible to all people.
I have no doubt that there are many confusions,
inaccuracies and outright mistakes in what
follows. As this set of documents is under continual
revision, please let me know what you like and/or don't
like, and I'd welcome any ideas for improvement. Yes,
even from the grammar nitpickers.
0.2 --- Goals and Assumptions
In my mind, there are 3 high-level goals you should
pursue while working through a course such as this.
You should emerge on the other side with some
appreciation of your cosmological context --- your
relative place in the Universe at large and the real
relationships in scale between the cosmos as a whole
and its constituent parts. We tend to live our
lives ignorant of the realities and relationships of
nature on scales very much smaller than we and
those much larger (and not just spatial scales, but
timescales too; some things happen very much
more quickly or slowly than is easily observed ---
more on this in a moment).
You will hopefully develop an appreciation for these
frameworks that bind all objects and processes
together into one intimately woven history and
future. To paraphrase
Neil deGrasse Tyson,
we are a small part of, and reside in, the larger
Universe; but it's important to understand that the
Universe and the products of 14 billion years of
cosmic evolution are also within us.
An understanding of the physical scales involved
should also be paired with an understanding of the
evolution of the Universe in time. A crucial point
is that, as a consequence of the natural laws we've
discovered, the Universe must change over
time. It is not the same today as it was yesterday,
and is certainly different from a few billion years
ago. If it really evolves, shouldn't these changes
be observable somehow? Yes! Read on...
Lastly, the engine that drives our predictions and
theories about how the Universe behaves is the
process of
science.
You will (hopefully) develop an appreciation of this
human enterprise while keeping in mind not only the
chains of logic and inference we use to make sense
of the cosmos around us, but the assumptions we
tacitly use to learn about the Universe.
For example, to do science, we typically make
the following assumptions about the Universe
at large:
- The Universe does not operate via
"magic". There is a consistent set of
underlying rules and principles that governs the
behavior of objects or phenomena that we observe.
- Humans can understand these principles.
This is not as obvious as it sounds. Naively we
might think that we can understand any set of
rules of behavior, but let's be cautious. We'll
learn, for example, that we've largely solved the
mystery of how the moon orbits the earth --- it is,
in fact, the same force that causes apples to
fall out of trees. We think we understand that.
But just try explaining that to a dog. It's not
just that they're not interested; they're not. But
more fundamentally, the dog's brain is made of the
same stuff as ours is, as far as we know, but it
seems safe to say that dogs are somehow limited in
their capacity to understand the Universe
compared to a human. Perhaps the number of neurons
and connections in our brains is sufficient to
appreciate abstract concepts that might escape the
dog. This works all right for our current model of
gravity,
but you could imagine some natural process operating
via a set of rules that are far too abstract or
complex for us to understand. There may be
creatures elsewhere with fantastically more complex
brains that can understand these new rules, but we
might forever find them incomprehensible. Perhaps
quantum mechanics,
the description of the rules followed by very small
particles, is already fundamentally beyond our
conceptual understanding. In any case, all I'm
saying is that just because we assume everything
operates according to rules doesn't mean that we can
understand those rules. In order to do
science, though, we assume that we can.
- The same rules apply everywhere. This
breakthrough is commonly first attributed to
Galileo and
Newton. This is tremendously important
since it allows us to perform experiments here on
Earth and then assume that the same rules and
processes apply in the most distant galaxy.
Now, it's possible that at least one, or all, of the
above are not true. We still don't know, for
example, if
consciousness
has a purely mechanical or physical explanation.
But to investigate it scientifically, we have to
assume that it does. Even if such a model for
consciousness is developed, it's important to keep
in mind the following caveat regarding scientific
theories:
- No scientific theory (better to say
"model") can ever be proven true
They can certainly be proven false, but never
true. The best we can ever say is that all
the available evidence supports a given
theory. Indeed, most initial theories (models) that
ever have been developed have yielded to
modification and replacement over time. New models
are ever more precise and can better explain new
observations gathered over longer times and with
better technology. We'll see many examples of this
as we go along. People often make mistakes on both
sides --- to say that some model is "just a theory"
(evolution, gravity) is ignorantly dismissive of the
evidence in favor of its wide adoption (a
theory
in science is much stronger than a "guess" in
popular language. A reasonable "guess" in science
is basically a
hypothesis.)
But to assume that a given theory is "true" in some
ultimate sense is also naive. Any theory is
subject to further testing and refinement, or
perhaps replacement.
Finally, I should draw a distinction between "fact"
and "theory" since they are frequently confused in
popular media. Facts are observable outcomes of
experiments --- anywhere you go on the surface of
the Earth, a dropped object will fall towards the
center of the Earth. Carefully following the path
of the Moon around the Earth, it also "falls"
towards the center of the Earth. As we accumulate
facts, we then may generalize some abstract set of
rules that give some underlying explanation of these
facts. In this case, that would originally be
Newton's gravitational theory. It generalizes
these facts into a unifying mathematical framework
that is able to reproduce the observations and then
further predicts the outcome of some new set
of observations. Later we might find that there are
facts that contradict our theory, so it will need to
be modified --- Einstein's modification of Newton's
theory is just such an example, as we'll see. So
there are the "facts" of gravity and the "theory" of
gravity that knits the known facts together in an
explanatory model. In another familiar case, there
are the facts of
evolution
(the genetic code of organisms change from
generation to generation, organisms compete with
each other for limited resources in a changing
environment), and the theory of evolution attempts
to explain these facts using concepts such as
genetic mutations and natural selection.
0.3 --- Our Place in the Universe
The above images represent a series of increasing
scales of size we'll be investigating. On the small
end, we'll start with the
atom.
There are 92 different atoms, or building blocks,
out of which all the "ordinary" matter in the
Universe is made. They each have different sizes,
but a rough average size for an atom is about a
ten-billionth of a meter. Lining up a billion atoms
will just about span the width of an apple. Ah, but
just how big is a billion? It is a number of
increasingly common usage --- describing the costs of
massive projects and proposals as well as
populations of the largest countries. It is written
as a 1 followed by 9 zeroes: 1,000,000,000. As a
shorthand, we write it also as 109,
indicating that it is 10 multiplied by itself 9
times. It is:
- A thousand groups of a million things each
- The number of seconds in 31.7 years. You are
likely to live somewhere between 2 and 3
billion seconds.
- The smallest marks on a ruler are typically
millimeters, so a billion of them end-to-end
would measure about 600 miles --- about the
distance from Oklahoma City to Denver.
So the first step from an atom to the everday scales
represented by an apple is an increase in scale by a
factor of a billion. If we line up a billion
apples, then we're approaching the size of the
Sun.
(note the size of the Earth compared to the Sun in
the image). Really, the Sun is about 10 billion
apples across --- truly gigantic compared to any
objects humans have been accustomed to dealing with
throughout our history. It is remarkable that just
in the last 100 years or so we have pretty well
figured out the physics of atomic interactions ten
billion times smaller than we as well as the inner
workings of the Sun and other stars ten billion
times larger. But we'll study objects on larger
scales still. 200 billion stars more or less like
the Sun are gathered in our
Milky Way Galaxy.
--- a
truly immense structure that is about ten billion
times larger than the Earth-Sun separation. Just as
the size of an atom is to an apple, and that apple
is to the Sun, the Sun is to our enveloping galaxy.
It is fascinating that we can view the gigantic
Milky Way every clear night from Earth; our
perspective in trying to fully comprehend this
object is in some way similar to an atom's
perspective of aggregate objects such as we.
But the Milky Way galaxy is not the largest
structure in the Universe, although 100 years ago we
were not aware of anything larger. There are
estimated to be around 150 billion galaxies
in the observable Universe, which apparently spans
the equivalent distance of about a million Milky Ways
across and is arrayed in beautiful networks of
galaxy clusters
and superclusters, as shown here. Only now,
for the first time in human history, we are able to
map the large-scale structure of the Universe. Many
previous cultures wondered and guessed at the nature
of the Universe as a whole and what it might look
like. We are the first privileged generation to
finally address and answer these fundamental
questions.
For most of our human history we have imagined our
perspective on the Universe as one of central
importance; the Universe has been considered to be very
local, centered on and rotating around the vast Earth
which rested at its center. Now we can finally leave
the nest and venture out a little bit into the Universe
beyond. For example, we now have a space station orbiting
about 200 miles above us (the
International Space Station (ISS)),
so we have a new perspective on our planet. Most of the
time, the ISS takes pictures of the Earth looking straight
down. Occasionally, though, the camera turns to capture
an image of the limb of the Earth and reveals the
tenuously thin atmosphere that blankets and protects us
from the inhospitable emptiness surrounding us.
We first were able to capture the entire disk of the
Earth when a few adventurous humans set out to explore
the Moon. It's a subtle change of perspective --- on
the surface of the Earth, we live on an infinite
2-dimensional surface and aren't so aware of the finite
nature of our home. This we can clearly see from an
outside third dimension. Our world is small and
bounded, framed by a cold emptiness that should
reinforce our commitment to care for this confined
habitat we share with trillions of other creatures that
don't share our elevated perspective. This particular
image was taken by the astronauts aboard
Apollo 17
in 1972 as they were headed towards the Moon.
This famous picture was taken by the crew of
Apollo 11
while orbiting the Moon looking at the "Earthrise"
above the lunar horizon. It is clear now that the Earth
is a world, no different fundamentally from
billions of other planets circling billions of other
stars, save for the fact that it is the only one we know
to harbor life (so far). This was the first view
from a completely alien world, looking back on
where we came from. Truly a milestone of human
achievement that will be marked for as long as we (as a
species) survive.
Still farther away, the Martian probe
HiRISE
captured this picture of the Earth-Moon system as it was
on its way to Mars. Here we see that the Earth and Moon
really are partners in their annual dance around the
Sun.
This remarkable picture was taken by the
Cassini
orbiting spacecraft as it swung behind Saturn. The view
is looking back towards the Sun (Saturn is blocking
the Sun here) and there we are!, the tiny dot seen
through the rings to the upper left of center. You may
need to look at the full-resolution image to see us,
just inside the second-farthest ring.
The most humbling picture we've been able to take
directly comes from the
Voyager 1
mission, originally launched in 1977.
Carl Sagan,
a popular astronomer about whom we'll learn more later,
requested in 1990 that the spacecraft turn around and
take a picture of the Earth from a vantage point roughly
at the orbit of Pluto. There we are, the tiny blue
speck (the glowing beams are artifacts from the camera
itself). The Earth is diminished to a speck; but keep
in mind that the probe is, on stellar scales, still
right in the neighborhood. Even at this distance, it is
only 1/5,000 of the way to the nearest star.
Sagan writes,
"From this distant vantage point, the Earth might
not seem of particular interest. But for us, it's
different. Look again at that dot. That's here, that's
home, that's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you
know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who
ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our
joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions,
ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and
forager, every hero and coward, every creator and
destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every
young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful
child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals,
every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every
"supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history
of our species lived there on a mote of dust suspended
in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena.
Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those
generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph,
they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of
a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the
inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely
distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how
frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to
kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the
delusion that we have some privileged position in the
Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping
cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness,
there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to
save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life.
There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to
which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not
yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where
we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and
character-building experience. There is perhaps no
better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than
this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it
underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with
one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue
dot, the only home we've ever known."
Despite our vantage point on this remote speck of a
world, we have managed to learn quite a bit about the
universe in which we find ourselves embedded. We'll
start the story by retracing what we can find out about
the sky by observing the repeating patterns that anyone
can see. Onward and outward!