There’s routine medical stuff happening Friday, so I’ve been getting this week’s ‘Saturday’ post written and ready to go today.
Some of that “ready to go” will have to wait until this afternoon, since part of what I’ve been talking about is the in-progress Starliner Crew Test Flight. Which, so far, has been going rather well.
That, for me, is good news. More about that this week’s ‘Saturday’ post. Where the medical stuff falls on the good news – bad news continuum: that, I’ll learn tomorrow.
Example of an Alcubierre warp trajectory, from “Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution”. (2024)
It’s been 30 years since a Mexican theoretical physicist said that a warp drive was possible: hypothetically. And published math that backed up his claim.
Last month, a team of scientists showed how we could build a warp drive: again, with math backing up their claim.
This year’s variation on the Alcubierre drive couldn’t travel faster than light. But it can, they say, be built with materials we have today.
This is a very big deal. And it’s what I’m talking about this week. Along with whatever else comes to mind.
First of all, we can’t make a vehicle travel faster than light. Not now. Not with any propulsion technology that’s even remotely conventional. And maybe not ever.
The ‘light barrier’ isn’t like the sound barrier — although both involve equations that give answers approaching infinity when approaching the phenomenon’s speed.
Early, very simple, math describing airfoil drag as a function of speed showed that drag became infinite at the speed of sound. According to those early equations.
But scientists had been studying things that travel faster than sound, like meteorites.
And they’d occasionally fire experimental airfoils at supersonic speeds. Which helped them develop more accurate mathematical models. So they knew that accelerating something beyond the speed of sound was possible.
“Breaking the sound barrier” was mainly an engineering issue.
The ‘light barrier’, on the other hand, involves how matter and energy work in this universe.
In physics, momentum is the form of energy an object has due to its motion. The faster it goes, the more energy it has; and the more massive it is — but that’s an angle of relativity I’ll leave for another time.
Newton’s math is an excellent model for objects that are traveling at tiny fractions of the speed of light.
As we pump more energy into an object, making it go faster, though, things get interesting. As an object approaches speed of light, its momentum approaches infinity. For anything that has a rest mass greater than zero, that’s not possible.
This increase in mass was detected at least by 1901.
Since then, increasingly accurate tests of relativistic mass increase have confirmed that this universe does, in fact, have a speed limit.1
New “Warp Drive” Approach: This One is Testable
Simplified diagram: metric creation method for constructing a physical shell solution. (2024)
The metric creation method outlined above is from the “warp drive” research paper published last month. I’ll be talking about what they found, but not the math.
First, though, I’ll share what a scientist had to say.
Paul Sutter, physicist and “science communicator”, did a pretty good job of discussing this latest analysis of a “warp drive”.
I’m not overly fond of the “warp drive” moniker. But the idea, and the name, got traction with Alcubierre’s “LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity”.2 (Classical and Quantum Gravity, 1994)
“…Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a toolkit for solving problems involving gravity that connects mass and energy with deformations in spacetime. In turn, those spacetime deformations instruct the mass and energy how to move. In almost all cases, physicists use the equations of relativity to figure out how a particular combination of objects will move. They have some physical scenario, like a planet orbiting a star or two black holes colliding, and they ask how those objects deform spacetime and what the subsequent evolution of the system should be.
“But it’s also possible to run Einstein’s math in reverse by imagining some desired motion and asking what kind of spacetime deformation can make it possible. This is how the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre discovered the physical basis for a warp drive—long a staple of the Star Trek franchise….”
“…While tantalizing, Alcubierre’s design has a fatal flaw. To provide the necessary distortions of spacetime, the spacecraft must contain some form of exotic matter, typically regarded as matter with negative mass. Negative mass has some conceptual problems that seem to defy our understanding of physics, like the possibility that if you kick a ball that weighs negative 5 kilograms, it will go flying backwards, violating conservation of momentum. Plus, nobody has ever seen any object with negative mass existing in the real Universe, ever….”
“…But there is a way around it, discovered by an international team of physicists led by Jared Fuchs at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. (The team is also affiliated with the Applied Propulsion Laboratory of Applied Physics, a virtual think tank dedicated to the research of, among many other things, warp drives.) In a paper accepted for publication in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, the researchers dug deep into relativity to explore if any version of a warp drive could work….” [emphasis mine]
Gravity, Newton’s Law, Einstein’s Math, and — Negative Mass?
Inserting the ALPHA-g apparatus, used in gravity experiments, at CERN’s Antimatter Factory. (2023)
Backing up a bit, gravity is a very basic part of this universe.
Describing it as a force, as Newton’s law of universal gravitation did, works very well for stuff that’s standing still or moving at tiny fractions of the speed of light.
Scientific laws, by the way, aren’t like laws written in the United States Code.
They’re regularities scientists have noticed, studied, and described. These descriptions, in turn, let scientists predict what will happen in given situations.
Predicting what will happen sounds a bit like divination. Saul tried something of the sort, getting a postmortem interview with Samuel. (1 Samuel 28:7–25) That was a bad idea. So is divination. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2115-2117)
But noticing how this universe works, and using that knowledge, is part of being human. It’s what we’re supposed to do. Ethics matter, the same as any other part of our lives, and that’s another topic. (Catechism, 2293-2295)
One more thing, before getting back to my last excerpt from Paul Sutter’s article.
He said that negative mass has never been observed. He’s right about that.
In this context, negative mass is a part of space which has, for some observers, a negative mass density.
“…Us physicists like it when all of our theories line up and agree on the nature of the Universe. So if the energy conditions set real limits on physics—limits where things like negative mass don’t just not exist, but can’t exist—then we’d like a physical theory that says that from the beginning, instead of relying on add ons like the energy conditions.
“Exploring how a warp drive might (not) work, and under what conditions and restrictions, is a step in that direction. For years physicists thought that the energy conditions outlawed all kinds of warp drives, yet the new research shows a possible way around that. What comes next will be a win no matter what; whether we get a fancy superluminal warp drive or not. That’s because whatever comes out of future lines of inquiry along these directions, we’re going to learn more about the force of gravity, and just possibly revolutionize our understanding of it.
“And who knows what we’ll get once we understand gravity better.” “New warp drive concept…“, Paul Sutter, Ars Technica (May 23, 2024) [emphasis mine]
Math, My Father, and Me: A Digression
Some of the math in “Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution”, Jared Fuchs et al. (2024)
Much as I’d like to explain how those equations work, I can’t. Which is doubly frustrating, since I enjoy understanding stuff and sharing what I’ve learned — and those standardized tests in high school said I should be good at math.
Maybe so, but I’m guessing that I’m a lot like my father that way.
He told about one question in a calculus test he took. It was partly multiple choice: describing two cylinders, asking for the volume they shared, with five possible answers.
My father did what I would have done. He looked at the two cylinders with his mind’s eye, saw how much space their intersection occupied, and checked off the answer that matched that quantity. Then he tried filling in the “show your work” part of the question.
My father’s equations were garbage. But he was the only one in the class to check off the correct quantity.
He and I emphatically have not lived with aphantasia. That’s not being able to form mental images: first described in 1880 and pretty much ignored ever since. Although I gather there’s been an uptick in interest, and I’m wandering off-topic.4
My experience with calculus was less noteworthy.
I took, but didn’t pass, a calculus class. A couple times I got that familiar ‘aha!’ moment, when ideas fall into place. But each time that happened, my attention flickered — and the ‘aha’ was lost without a trace. Frustrating.
“Exotic Solutions” Offering a “Novel Means of Transportation”
That won’t keep me from talking about what scientists do, since I can read what they say about their math.
“Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution” Jared Fuchs, Christopher Helmerich, Alexey Bobrick, Luke Sellers, Brandon Melcher, Gianni Martire; preprint draft (May 4, 2024) via arXiv, Cornell University
“Abstract “Warp drives are exotic solutions of general relativity that offer novel means of transportation. In this study, we present a solution for a constant-velocity subluminal warp drive that satisfies all of the energy conditions. The solution involves combining a stable matter shell with a shift vector distribution that closely matches well-known warp drive solutions such as the Alcubierre metric. We generate the spacetime metric numerically, evaluate the energy conditions, and confirm that the shift vector distribution cannot be reduced to a coordinate transformation. This study demonstrates that classic warp drive spacetimes can be made to satisfy the energy conditions by adding a regular matter shell with a positive ADM mass.”
Before I move on, a few definitions. ADM mass involves energy, and metric tensors is geek-speak for describing a space-time. I’ve put links in the footnotes.5
“In general relativity, the metric tensor (in this context often abbreviated to simply the metric) is the fundamental object of study. The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as time, distance, volume, curvature, angle, and separation of the future and the past….” (Metric tensor (general relativity)) [emphasis mine]
A Testable Warp Solution: Exciting!
From “Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution”, Fuschs et al. — how to test their idea. (2024)
“Conclusion “…This exciting new result offers an important first step toward understanding what makes physical warp solutions. Moreover, the warp drive spacetime constructed here is a new type of warp drive beyond the Natario class and hence not subject to the same scope discussed in [9] and [18] due to its use of modified spatial terms in the metric. This new solution shows that a more generic constant velocity warp drive spacetime can be constructed that satisfies the energy conditions.
“We intend to explore this solution further and find areas of optimization to improve the mass-to-velocity ratio required to maintain physicality….” (“Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution“; Jared Fuchs, Christopher Helmerich, Alexey Bobrick, Luke Sellers, Brandon Melcher, Gianni Martire; preprint draft (May 4, 2024) via arXiv, Cornell University)
“Excited” pretty well sums up my reaction to this research. That’s not a common response. Not these days, not to this extent.
I graduated from high school shortly before the Apollo 11 landing. There’ve been quite few “exciting” events since then.
But this? For me, this is the biggest thing since I ran across “Warp Field Mechanics 101” on the NASA website: and the next day NASA (apparently) ‘went black’. I’ll talk about that a little later.
I do not think this means we’ll soon have fast interplanetary travel. Even though the scientists mention “exotic solutions” offering “novel means of transportation” and “passengers”.
“…1.2 Designing Warp Drive Spacetimes “The transportation element of warp drives is about designing timelike curves for passengers to travel between points A and B in spacetime. In this paper, we will go about developing a warp solution in the following steps….” (“Constant Velocity Physical Warp Drive Solution“; Jared Fuchs, Christopher Helmerich, Alexey Bobrick, Luke Sellers, Brandon Melcher, Gianni Martire; preprint draft (May 4, 2024) via arXiv, Cornell University)
What’s genuinely fascinating here is that their ideas can be tested, using light sources, detectors, mirrors, and a “stable shell of matter”: ordinary matter. Nothing exotic or hypothetical.
The only other example of practical “warp drive” laboratory test equipment I’ve run across is the 2011 White-Juday warp field interferometer.
The last I heard, the White-Juday warp field interferometer gave inconclusive results. If it generated space-time distortions, they could have been masked by electronic noise and ionized air.6
What astonished me about the White-Juday warp field interferometer was that scientists thought there was even a remote chance of (1) generating detectable space-time distortions (2) with contemporary technology.
This year’s revisiting of “warp drive” physics may also yield inconclusive results.
But — and I think this is important — these scientists outlined how others could test their ideas: and said they “intend to explore this solution further”.
No matter how the tests come out, we’ll be learning more about how space-time works.
Then, as Paul Sutter said, “…who knows what we’ll get once we understand gravity better.”
The Day “Warp Field Mechanics 101” Disappeared
A little over 11 years back, I felt as if I’d dropped into a science fiction thriller. Briefly.
…March 18, 2013. I’d been looking through NASA’s discussions of ‘next generation’ and ‘beyond next generation’ propulsion technology.
My habits include downloading information for later study.
Usually it’s not necessary. This time it was.
March 19, 2013. I went back to the NASA website.
NASA wasn’t there. Apart from a few polite statements that data was not available.
NASA had gone black.
Classic Science Fiction Thriller (or) Another SNAFU
I’ve read enough stories to recognize a classic science fiction thriller plot.
But I was pretty sure that folks at NASA hadn’t inadvertently leaked Top Secret Stardrive Documents. Cool as that might have been.
As it turns out, someone had hacked into United States government databases.
Information Technology folks couldn’t tell exactly how much had been accessed.
Someone higher in the administrative food chain realized that at least some of the compromised data shouldn’t be shared with everyone. And so the whole NASA website went offline. Along with other U.S. government sites….
NASA eventually came back online, I stayed interested in “warp drive” research, and I talked about NASA ‘going black’ in 2013:
I didn’t find any references to the March, 2013, hacking incident then. I did this week: but only two. And I’m not sure about a 2018 reference to “an attack in 2013”.7
Anyway, I said I’d talk about the day NASA ‘went black’, and I still think it’s a good story.
History —
History doesn’t repeat itself. Not exactly.
But I’ve noticed that patterns to recur.
So I could note that Konstantin Tsiolkovsky published his rocket equation in 1903, Robert H. Goddard launched the first liquid fueled rocket in 1926, and Apollo 11 landed on the Moon in 1969.
Then I could say that, since it was 23 years since Alcubierre first published his math, someone flight-tested a warp drive in 2017.
And that the first interstellar ship with a warp drive will reach Alpha Centauri in 2060: 43 years after the 2017 flight test, just like Goddard and Apollo.
I could, but I won’t. Paul Sutter was right. Variations on the Alcubierre drive would need something like dark matter. And nobody has observed such a thing. Not directly.
Einstein’s math suggests that dark matter could, hypothetically, exist. And if it does, then it explains oddities like the orbits of stars in spiral galaxies.
But even if it’s real, we’re not even close to manufacturing or collecting the stuff, let alone using it in a propulsion system.
I suspect a closer analog to Alcubierre’s 1994 letter to the editor might be William Moore’s “On the Motion of Rockets both in Nonresisting and Resisting Mediums”. (1810)
That paper wasn’t exactly lost, but it wasn’t widely available either.
So about a century later, Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, and Hermann Oberth came up with pretty much the same results. Independently.8 Which shouldn’t be surprising, since all four scientists were studying the same universe.
— And Being Human
One thing of the many that had changed, a century after William Moore’s research, was that technology was starting to catch up with the math.9 Awkward metaphor, but it’s Friday afternoon and I’ll let it stand.
Again, history doesn’t repeat itself: but I’ve noticed the occasional pattern emerge from humanity’s long story.
One thing that hasn’t changed in the uncounted ages before we started keeping written records is our wondering what’s over the next hill. We’re now living on every one of Earth’s continents; although I’ll grant that our Antarctic settlements are more camps than towns.
Even if something drastic happens in the next few decades, I’d be astounded if we don’t eventually get around to revisiting the Moon — following our robots to Mars — and finding a way of reaching the stars.
I’ve also noticed that at least some theoretical physicists have gone from saying that a warp drive is impossible — to showing ways it might work, once we develop the technology. And find something that’ll work like dark matter would.
Maybe — a century, or a millennium, from now — we’ll learn how to build warp drives.
Or maybe we’ll learn that there isn’t a fast way to the stars.
6 Applied physics, an Applied Physics outfit that’s not with Johns Hopkins University, the White-Juday warp field interferometer, and two (?) papers by Miguel Alcubierre:
“An appalling attempt to muzzle the watch-dog of science” on the cover of Puck. (March 5, 1883)
I think the notion that someone can either be a Christian or appreciate the cosmic scale and wonders of God’s creation is fading.
Sincerely believing in a conflict where champions of science and reason opposed the dark forces of religion didn’t, arguably, start in the 19th century.
But that’s when the idea got traction. In England and America, at any rate.
Even so, fallout from the 19th century could be worse. I could be living in a culture where religiously earnest folks insisted that diamagnetism is diabolical.
This week I’ll be talking about faith, reason, cultural baggage, and why using my brain is a good idea.
“‘The Society for the Suppression of Blasphemous Literature proposes to get up cases against Professors Huxley and Tyndall, Herbert Spencer, and others who, by their writings, have sown widespread unbelief, and in some cases rank atheism.’ — Tel. London, March 5, 1883″ (via Public Domain Media, Library of Congress) [emphasis mine]
Agnosticism, Diamagnetism — and Levitating Frogs
Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer, don’t have all that much name recognition these days, so here’s a quick introduction:
Thomas Huxley: English biologist, anthropologist; nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog”; coined “agnosticism”
Herbert Spencer: English philosopher, anthropologist, biologist, psychologist, sociologist; coined “survival of the fittest”; agnostic
John Tyndall: Irish physicist; often seen as agnostic
Agnosticism, very briefly, is the idea that we can’t know whether or not God exists. I can see how that might make sense in the late 19th century. Particularly in England.
All three — Huxley, Spencer, and Tyndall — had a reputation for being agnostic. Huxley and Spencer were pretty clear about being agnostic.
My guess is that John Tyndall got pegged as an agnostic because he was a physicist; and, despite being Irish, known for being pretty smart.
Tyndall probably realized that, smart as we humans are, God-level understanding is beyond us.
“…If you ask him [the materialist] whence is this ‘Matter’ of which we have been discoursing–who or what divided it into molecules, who or what impressed upon them this necessity of running into organic forms–he has no answer. Science is mute in reply to these questions. But if the materialist is confounded and science rendered dumb, who else is prepared with a solution? To whom has this arm of the Lord been revealed? Let us lower our heads, and acknowledge our ignorance, priest and philosopher, one and all….
“…I compare the mind of man to a musical instrument with a certain range of notes, beyond which in both directions exists infinite silence. The phenomena of matter and force come within our intellectual range; but behind, and above, and around us the real mystery of the universe lies unsolved, and, as far as we are concerned, is incapable of solution….” (“Fragments of Science: A Series of Detached Essays, Addresses, and Reviews“, V. 1-2, John Tyndall (1879) via Gutenberg.org)
John Tyndall’s reputation as an agnostic may be due to his being one of the few high-profile British physicists of his day who weren’t insisting that science and religion were, if not on the same page, at least in same book.
I’m not sure what accounts for Tyndall’s lack of infamy these days.
Or why diamagnetism hasn’t been denounced something fierce. Not the way Darwin’s ideas about evolution were.
At any rate, Tyndall’s early research involved diamagnetism.
Diamagnetism is a bit of natural weirdness that’s been studied since 1778, when someone noticed that magnets repel bismuth.
Since Tyndall’s day, we’ve learned that it’s a quantum mechanical effect. And that, given enough power, we can use it to levitate frogs.1
It’s probably just as well that John Tyndale’s interest in diamagnetism remained mostly a nerdy science topic.
Checking Our Cultural Baggage
I talked about Victorian politics, the Church of England, and England’s educational establishment last month.
Basically, folks who liked the status quo thought that Henry VIII’s national church should keep its tight grip on England’s education system. Folks who thought maybe they weren’t living in the best of all possible Englands — didn’t.
Vastly oversimplified? Yes.
Essentially accurate? I think so.
Among the reasons I am profoundly glad that “the good old days” are not returning? Definitely.
An example of how cultural baggage — beliefs, customs, folklore, laws, social behavior and norms; everything a person grows up with — can get in the way of common sense?
I think so.
But that doesn’t mean I see either Huxley and company or the Society for the Suppression of Blasphemous Literature (SSBL hereafter) as ‘good guys’ or ‘bad guys’.
I suspect Huxley, Spencer, and all, sincerely felt that they were struggling for truth and freedom of thought. And that the SSBL sincerely believed they were defending the British public against blasphemy and atheism.
Being calm and collected about the SSBL, Huxley, and political satire of the 1880s is easy.
Particularly since we’ve had our own brouhahas: including analogs of the SSBL vs. Huxley embarrassment. Repetition reduces their shock value.
It’s been nearly a century since William Jennings “Cross of Gold” Bryan — unintentionally, I think — helped establish the idea that someone could either be scientifically literate, or be a Christian.2
The 1925 Scopes trial is now part of my country’s cultural baggage. I can’t change that, but I can suggest that unconscious assumptions aren’t necessarily a good match with current realities.
Remembering the Freethought Road
From “The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book”, Watson Heston. (1896)
Backing up a bit: sincerity is nice, but it won’t make something real.
For example, I could sincerely believe that anything I do is right: because I’m one of the ‘good guys’.
That would make me delusional, or a flaming hypocrite. Now I’ve probably insulted someone, and that’s another topic.
Presenting religion, particularly Christianity, as the cause of hypocrisy — “the Vale of Tears” leading to ignorance, cruelty, and superstition — was arguably an easy sell in 1896, when The Truth Seeker Company published “The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book”.3
Back then, an American version of Christianity was widely accepted.
I’m reasonably sure that finding someone who identified as Christian, but didn’t act the part, was easy. Maybe even unavoidable. Contrasting that unpleasant reality with the unrealized promises of Watson Heston’s Freethought Road could feel good.
About waypoints on Freethought Road, and its ultimate goal: they sound good.
I have no problem with reason, education, humanity — good grief, I am human; of course I’m okay with humanity — justice, science, virtue, love, liberty, and truth.
That was true before I became a Catholic. What’s changed is that now using my brain, acting as if I love my neighbors, and seeking truth, are obligations.
Another obligation is keeping my priorities straight. Putting anything or anyone ahead of God is a bad idea and I shouldn’t do it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2112-2114)
Valuing truth, though, isn’t a problem. Or shouldn’t be.
That’s because God is the source of all truth, and I’m expected to “live in truth”. (Catechism, 2464-2503)
Protecting Their Country From People Like Me
A familiar assumption, from “The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book”. (1896)
“The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book” reminded me of today’s Chick tracts. Mainly because of the book’s tone, and effective use of illustrations.
“…Pictorial Text-book” had more text, fewer pictures, the usual anti-Catholic attitude, plus noting that other Christians didn’t act like Christians either. With, of course, a Freethinker’s view of those religious people.
“The Church and Slavery”, for example, on pages 270-271, discusses “The Ghost in the Methodist Church-Yard”. And that’s yet another topic. Topics.
So: how can I reasonably be a Christian, and a Catholic, in a world where Christians and Catholics aren’t all perfectly perfect people?
Let’s put it this way. I’m not a perfectly perfect person. Complaining because the Church lets people like me be Catholics doesn’t make sense. Although a similar thought did make a good joke.
“I sent the club a wire stating, ‘PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER’.” (Groucho Marx, Telegram to the Friar’s Club of Beverly Hills to which he belonged, as recounted in Groucho and Me (1959) via Wikiquote)
If that gag seems familiar, it should. I used it three weeks ago.4
Since I’m one of those “ignorant followers” of “privileged characters”, I could hardly blame freethinkers from wanting to protect their country from people like me.
But I do not think their fears were justified.
Partly because I know there’s more to Christianity than folks desperately trying to stop the publication of scientific research. Granted, folks like the 20th century Anti-Evolution League of America tend to get attention. I talked about them last month.5
Darwin, Divinity, and Letter From an English Priest
His Eminence Saint John Henry Newman’s desk in the Birmingham Oratory.
St. John Henry Newman — the English John Newman, not the Bohemian-American St. John Neumann — was not your typical 19th century Catholic.
For one thing, he was a cardinal. And a convert to Catholicism.
Cardinals are next step down in the Church hierarchy from pope. I won’t try summarizing who does what, from laity like me up to the servant of the servants of God. Not this week. We’ve been around for two millennia and — it’s complicated.
The point of that ramble is that John Henry Newman was a Catholic priest when he wrote a letter to J. Walker of Scarborough, but wouldn’t be a cardinal for another 11 years. Here’s an excerpt from that letter:
“…If Mr Darwin in this or that point of his theory comes into collision with revealed truth, that is another matter — but I do not see that the principle of development, or what I have called construction, does. As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design — It is accidental to us, not to God….” (John Henry Newman to J. Walker of Scarborough on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (May 22, 1868) via Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion & Science [emphasis in original text])
Maybe St. John Henry Newman’s “accidental” in the last sentence has the word’s philosophical meaning: a property that doesn’t necessarily connect to an item’s essence.
A chair, for example, might “accidentally” be made of wood or plastic. But either way, it would would be “essentially” a chair.6
Or maybe he was playing with words and ideas, and meant that we don’t have a God’s-eye view of reality. Which is something I’m comfortable with.
I like knowing things and understanding stuff. But I’m okay with knowing that God’s God and I’m not.
That brings me to a counter-cultural idea.
Thinking is Not a Sin
From “The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book”, Watson Heston: old and new cosmologies. (1896)
Before talking about sin and thinking, a quick overview of how I should act.
When I don’t love God and my neighbors: that’s sin. Sin gets in the way of healthy relationships. It’s an offense against reason, truth, “right conscience”, and God. (Catechism, 1849-1851)
Since I’m a Catholic, I think faith and reason get along. (Catechism, 35, 50, 154-159)
My faith is a willing and conscious decision to embrace God’s truth. All of God’s truth, including what we can see in this universe. Studying God’s work makes sense, since I think God creates everything. (Genesis 1:1–31, 2:4–25; Catechism, 31-35, 142-155, 325-349)
I also think each of us is made “in the image of God”, with body AND soul. And that because I’m human, I’m “an animal endowed with reason”. (Catechism, 355-373, 1951)
But I have free will. So using reason, thinking, is an option: not a hardwired response. It’s also an obligation, and vital when I’m deciding what I’ll do or not do. (Catechism, 1730, 1749ff)
Truth matters, both in science and in faith. (Catechism, 31, 159, and more)
God is the source of all truth. (Catechism, 2465)
Since all truth points toward God, both studying God’s creation and taking God seriously isn’t a problem. (Catechism, 27, 31-35, 41, 74, 282-289, 293-294, 341, 1723, 2294, 2500)
“The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: ‘It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.'” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 283) [emphasis mine]
“…The order and harmony of the created world results from the diversity of beings and from the relationships which exist among them. Man discovers them progressively as the laws of nature. They call forth the admiration of scholars. The beauty of creation reflects the infinite beauty of the Creator and ought to inspire the respect and submission of man’s intellect and will.” (Catechism, 341) [emphasis mine]
Again: thinking is part of being human, or should be. It’s what I’m supposed to do.
I keep saying that. A lot. Mostly because the notion that science and religion can’t mix has been so deeply embedded in my culture.
Punctured Pride?
I don’t know why anti-evolution books often had their own section in “Christian” bookstores, while anti-physics tomes — now that I think about it, I can’t remember seeing any.
Maybe it’s because most proper English gentleman-physicists of a bygone era weren’t upsetting applecarts.
While, in sharp contrast, folks like Huxley were openly agnostic: and actually said that humans weren’t utterly separate and distinct from — shudder — animals. The very idea!!!
I suspect — strongly — that anti-evolution sentiments are at least partly rooted in punctured pride.
I’ve got my share of self-esteem above and beyond the call of reason. But I’ve looked in a mirror, and have seen apes in Como Zoo.
In any case, I don’t have a problem with thinking that we’re made “in the image of God” and from the stuff of this world. I’ve read Genesis 1:27 and 2:7, don’t think Sacred Scriptures were written by English-speaking literalists, and that’s yet again more topics.7
Perspectives
The “Dawn of a New Day” in “the world of tomorrow”. World’s Fair, 1939-1940 .
“Indeed, before you the whole universe is like a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth. “But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook sins for the sake of repentance.” (Wisdom 11:22–23)
I do, at times, miss the old panegyrics of progress, proclaiming that science, technology, and electric hair clippers would lead us into a shining utopia.
We’ll be cleaning up the mess left by mass-produced kitsch and throwaway durables for generations — but at least the era’s attitude was occasionally cheerful.
I don’t miss the triumphalist tone of articles contrasting science and high ideals with superstition, ignorance, and other (alleged) manifestations of religious beliefs.
And I emphatically don’t miss loudly-religious folks who seemed determined to demonstrate that freethinkers and their successors were right about religious people.
That sort of thing seems to be going out of fashion.8
I don’t mind a bit.
I think it’s high time we acknowledge that the 19th century is over.
Finally, a few of my favorite quotes about truth, science, not knowing everything — and studying God’s universe.
“…It’s something too many of us forget, that reality has layers. Occasionally people ask me how I can be Catholic and a science journalist. The answer is simple: Truth does not contradict truth. Both science and religion are pursuit of truth. They’re after different aspects of truth, different layers of reality, but they’re still both fundamentally about truth.…” (Camille M. Carlisle, Sky and Telescope (June 2017)) [emphasis mine]
“…Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: ‘On to God!’” (Religion and Natural Science, a lecture delivered in May, 1937, originally titled Religion und Naturwissenschaft. Complete translation into English: “Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers“, Max Planck (1968); via archive.org) [emphasis mine]
“…God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures — and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. … Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth.…” (“Providentissimus Deus“, Pope Leo XIII (November 18, 1893)) [emphasis mine]
“Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air…. They all answer you, ‘Here we are, look; we’re beautiful.’… “…So in this way they arrived at a knowledge of the god who made things, through the things which he made”. (Sermon 241, St. Augustine of Hippo (ca. 411))
More of my take on faith, reason, and using our brains:
“The Freethinkers’ Pictorial Text-book” “showing the absurdity and untruthfulness of the Church’s claim to be a divine and beneficent institution….” Designs by Watson Heston, The Truth Seeker Company (1896) via Internet Archive
A helicopter carrying two pilots, a flight technician, and at least five other folks crashed yesterday. They’re all dead. One of them was Iran’s president: which made the aviation accident international news.
I am not happy that at least eight people died in that helicopter. I am particularly troubled, because at least one of those deaths may make life difficult for a great many other folks.
All of which may take a little explaining.
I think human life matters. All human life. Each human life: no matter how young or old, healthy or sick we are. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2258, 2261, 2268-2283)
The life of everyone in that helicopter mattered because each of them is human. What each one did, and may have believed, doesn’t change that. (Catechism, 360, 1700-1706, 1932-1933, 1935)
Life matters. So does responsibility and justice.
Like everyone else, I can try helping or hurting others. And I’m responsible for my actions. (Catechism, 1701-1709, 1730-1738, 2258)
I’ve talked about death, life, and making sense, before:
Ralf Crawford’s impression of the exoplanet 55 Cancri e and its sun.
This month’s analysis of a piping hot super-Earth’s atmosphere is a big deal.
But it’s not the “first” detection of a terrestrial exoplanet’s atmosphere, not by about eight years.1
I’ll be talking about how scientists sift through data, 55 Cancri e’s atmosphere, its planetary system, why 55 Cancri e — the exoplanet was officially named Janssen in 2015 — and why calling Janssen a “diamond planet” may be appropriate.
“Researchers using NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope may have detected atmospheric gases surrounding 55 Cancri e, a hot rocky exoplanet 41 light-years from Earth. This is the best evidence to date for the existence of any rocky planet atmosphere outside our solar system.
“Renyu Hu from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, is lead author on a paper published today in Nature. ‘Webb is pushing the frontiers of exoplanet characterization to rocky planets,’ Hu said. ‘It is truly enabling a new type of science.’…”
I’m not sure exactly what “new type of science” Dr. Hu had in mind. This Dr. Hu is the one with a PhD in planetary science from MIT, by the way; not the nuclear physicist who retired in 1994.
At any rate, this Dr. Hu is the lead author of “A secondary atmosphere on the rocky Exoplanet 55 Cancri e”, published in Nature on May 8, 2024.
And, although Nature is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that’s currently unavailable to me, I do have access to a very recent pre-press draft on Cornell’s open-access arXiv service.1 I’ve talked about paywalls, member-only online resources, and other frustrations, before.
Getting back to “a new type of science”, the data Dr. Hu’s team was working with is new: partly from 2023 observations by the James Webb Space Telescope.
But as far as I could tell, they’re not using new mathematical tools. On the other hand, I could have missed something. I’m taking it easy this week, and didn’t pore over their pre-print paper all that intently.
Bayesian Basics and Dealing With Incomplete Data
Maybe part of the “new science” is running data through several analyses, with a different team working on each analysis.
“…The NIRCam data were analyzed by 4 independent teams with different pipelines (Methods). We removed 1/f noise (the correlated read noise that impacts data across a wide range of timescales with a 1/f power spectrum33)…” (“A secondary atmosphere on the rocky exoplanet 55 Cancri e’“; Renyu Hu, Aaron Bello-Arufe, et al.; (submitted May 8, 2024) via arXiv, Cornell University)
Besides spreading out the workload, independent analysis teams should lower the odds that folks who are crunching the numbers will unintentionally bias their results. That can be a problem for any sort of analysis, not just science stuff, and that’s another topic.
One of the tools Hu and company used is Bayesian math: which I hadn’t noticed in research papers until fairly recently. But then, I’m not a scientist; and it wasn’t until fairly recently that I could get my virtual hands on such things.
Bayesian statistics is what happened when Pierre-Simon Laplace started working on Bayes’ theorem. Bayes was a statistician, philosopher, and Presbyterian minister. A whole bunch of folks have fine-tuned what we call Bayesian statistics, but I’ll skip all that.
Basically, Bayesian statistics lets scientists work out the odds that something is true, based on facts that may or may not matter. It’s useful when we don’t know everything.2
Which, arguably, is pretty much always the case.
Studying Starlight: Transits, Eclipses, and a Whole Lot of Math
Illustration: 55 Cancri e’s thermal emission spectrum from NIRCam, GRISM Spectrometer (F444W), & MIRI. (March 2023, published 2024) NASA/ESA/CSA/STScI/JPL.
Studying 55 Cancri e would be fairly easy, if it was in the Solar System. We’d just point a telescope toward the planet and take a few pictures.
If 55 Cancri e’s edges were fuzzy, that’d mean it’s got an atmosphere.
Scientists could put a spectrometer on the telescope, look at what wavelengths get reflected and/or absorbed, and that’d tell them what’s in the atmosphere or on the surface.
Or they could arrange for a probe to be dropped into 55 Cancri e’s atmosphere, and get data from that.
Just one problem. Light from 55 Cancri e takes 41 years to get here. Astronomers are doing well to work out which parts of the 55 Cancri A system’s light are coming from planets, and which are from the star.
Happily, since 55 Cancri e passes in front of and behind its star during each orbit, careful observations tell scientists quite a bit about the planet.
The trick is measuring light when:
Both are visible and neither is blocked
The planet blocks part of the star’s light
The star blocks light reflected by the planet
Then, using a whole lot of math, scientists work out what’s reflected from the just planet. And what is (or isn’t) shining through the planet’s atmosphere: if it’s got one.
I talked about this last year, along with what we’re learning about weather — winds, specifically — on WASP-18b.3
Welcome to the Copernicus Planetary System
The star Copernicus, 55 Cancri A, and its known planets.
55 Cancri is a double star, between Rho2 and Iota Cancri in our sky.
55 Cancri B is a red dwarf with no name.
But in 2015, the IAU made it official: 55 Cancri A’s name is Copernicus.
Copernicus / 55 Cancri A’s planets are:
Galileo (b)
Brahe (c)
Lipperhey (d)
Janssen (e)
Harriot (f)
55 Cancri has a Bonner Durchmusterung designation, BD+28°1660, which strongly suggests that it was known at least as far back as the mid-19th century.
Scientists started spotting planets around 55 Cancri A in the late 20th century.
Galileo, 55 Cancri b, was discovered in 1996; Janssen, 55 Cancri e — the planet I’m talking about this week — was discovered in 2004.
Harriot’s discovery, that’s 55 Cancri f, was announced in 2005 and published in 2007.
At that point, the Copernicus planetary system had five known planets. The last I checked, there’s informed speculation that there may be more.
So how come one of last week’s headlines announced the “discovery” of Janssen??
That’d be impressive, if other scientists hadn’t published this research, back in 2016:
“Detection of an atmosphere around the super-Earth 55 Cancri e” A. Tsiaras et al., The Astrophysical Journal (March 24, 2016)
In my darker moments, I feel that many news editors got their science education by watching “Captain Planet and the Planeteers” and “The Fifth Element”.4
More likely, the headlines and articles reflect each publication’s readership: 0r editorial perceptions thereof.
“…KOI-351 is ‘the first system with a significant number of planets (not just two or three, where random fluctuations can play a role) that shows a clear hierarchy like the solar system — with small, probably rocky, planets in the interior and gas giants in the (exterior),’….” [emphasis mine]
“…The 55 Cancri system is currently the closest known analogue to our solar system, yet there are some fundamental differences.
“The similarities begin with the stars themselves, which are about the same mass and age. Both stars also host big families of planets….
“…In addition, both planetary systems have giant planets in their outer regions. The giant located far away from 55 Cancri is four times the mass of our Jupiter, and completes one orbit every 14 years at a distance of five times that between Earth and the sun … Our Jupiter completes one orbit around the sun every 11.9 years, also at about five times the Earth-sun distance….” [emphasis mine]
Other stars, like HD 70642 and HIP 11915, have roughly Jupiter-mass planets orbiting about as far out as Jupiter. But again: the Copernicus system is still among the very few that resemble our Solar System.
Make that vaguely resemble.
The KOI-351 system — it’s also called Kepler-90, has a mess of other designations, and if I start talking about that, this won’t be ready by Saturday.
Anyway, the KOI-351/Kepler-90 system has eight planets.
The smaller ones orbit close to their star, which is almost but not quite like ours. So far, the KOI-351 system sounds just like the Solar System. Except that all eight planets are closer to their sun than Earth is to ours.
The Copernicus / 55 Cancri planetary system has a roughly Jupiter-mass planet in an orbit roughly as big as Jupiter’s.
But the other known planets aren’t arranged like the Solar System’s:with smaller, rocky, worlds close to the star and giant planets farther out.
Here’s the known Copernicus system planets, starting with the innermost one:5
e (Janssen) — 7.99 times Earth’s mass, 1.875 times Earth’s diameter
b (Galileo) — 0.8 times Jupiter’s mass, maybe more
c (Brahe) — 51.2 times Earth’s mass, maybe more
f (Harriot) — 49.8 times Earth’s mass, maybe more
d (Lipperhey) — 3.12 times Jupiter’s mass, maybe more
I left out symbols like ±, M[astronomical symbol meaning “Earth”], and MJ, which say which Solar System planet is being used for comparison, and how accurate our data is. Basically, those numbers are approximations, but pretty close.
Copernicus: Giant Planets and a Super-Earth Circling a Slightly Strange Star
Lipperhey, the outermost known planet in the Copernicus system, is roughly three and an eighth times Jupiter’s mass.
The inner planets — Janssen, Galileo, Brahe, and Harriot — all have orbits smaller than Earth’s.
Janssen, the one I’m talking about today, whips around Copernicus once every 17 hours and 41 minutes. Just under 17 hours and 41 minutes, actually. The point is that it’s really, really, close to its sun.
On top of that, Copernicus is a slightly odd star. Although is it’s a trifle cooler and less massive than our sun, Copernicus apparently puts out a bit more energy than a K0-V main sequence star should.
So it’s classed as K0IV-V: maybe on the main sequence, maybe a subgiant star.
More oddities: Copernicus has more “metals” than our sun. In astronomer-speak, a “metal” is any element heavier than hydrogen or helium. Copernicus has 186% the solar amount of iron; and a carbon/oxygen ratio of 0.78, compared to our star’s 0.55.
All that apparently makes the age of Copernicus hard to work out. But, whether it’s 7,400,000,000 years old or 12,700,000,000 years old, it’s been around considerably longer than the Solar System.
Janssen isn’t quite so ambiguous. It’s a super-Earth that actually is a terrestrial planet: a rocky (?) world, like Earth. It’s twice our home’s diameter, and so hot that it might have had an atmosphere of vaporized rock.6
Janssen: ‘Terrestrial’, But Not Like Earth
Comparing Janssen’s hypothetical rock vapor atmosphere with NIRCam spectrum. Renyu Hu et al. (2024)
Again, Janssen is almost certainly a terrestrial planet: like Mercury, Venus, Earth-Moon, and Mars in the Solar System. I’m inclined to see the Earth-Moon system as a double planet; which is yet another topic.
But Janssen’s ‘rocks’ may not be the silicate sort we’re familiar with.
Now, about Janssen’s atmosphere. Thanks to this month’s “A secondary atmosphere on the rocky exoplanet 55 Cancri e” paper, we can be pretty sure Janssen has an atmosphere; and that Janssen’s air isn’t made of rock vapor.
Odds are that Janssen’s atmosphere has a fair amount of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, something that’s mentioned in the study’s opening Summary Paragraph:
“…The measurements rule out the scenario where the planet is a lava world shrouded by a tenuous atmosphere made of vaporized rock29-32, and indicate a bona fide volatile atmosphere likely rich in CO2 or CO. This atmosphere can be outgassed from and sustained by a magma ocean….” (“A secondary atmosphere on the rocky Exoplanet 55 Cancri e“, Renyu Hu et al., preprint (May 2024) via arXiv)
They used data from the James Webb Space Telescope’s MIRI (Mid-Infrared Instrument) and NIRCam (Near-InfraRed Camera) — I talked about JWST and infrared astronomy last December.
I remember reading about carbon dioxide and monoxide in Janssen’s atmosphere in science news articles: but not an odd chemical mentioned in the research paper’s main text:
“…The presence of H2O, SO2, or PH3 could improve the fit to the spectral modulation in 4-5 μm in some cases. In the other set of models, we assumed an atmosphere in volatile equilibrium with the underlying magma ocean44,45….
“…In summary, the best-fit models center around three possible scenarios: a CO2-rich atmosphere (C+O~10-3, C/O<1), a CO-dominated atmosphere (C+O~1, C/O>=1), or a PH3-rich atmosphere with minimal C+O influence (C/O=1, C+O=10-7, PH3~10-4). The first scenario is uniquely favored when fitting the NIRCam data alone (Extended Data Fig. 8), which is consistent with spectral retrievals. By contrast, the MIRI data does not indicate any clear molecular features, suggesting either efficient heat redistribution or overlapping absorption features (e.g., H2O in 7-9 μm and CO2 in 9-11 μm) that place the photosphere to the cooler regions of the atmosphere….” (“A secondary atmosphere on the rocky Exoplanet 55 Cancri e“, Renyu Hu et al., preprint (May 2024) via arXiv) [emphasis mine]
Phosphine, PH3, is a compound of phosphorus and hydrogen. It’s highly toxic, and used for both pest control and microelectronics manufacturing.
Other than what Hu et al. said about adding a dash of phosphine for a better fit, I don’t see why they picked that particular compound.
Hydrogen is by far the most common element in this universe. Carbon and oxygen are both among the 10 most common elements, at least in this galaxy. Phosphorus isn’t.
My guess is that someone will crunch numbers for the “PH3-rich atmosphere with minimal C+O influence” atmosphere model.
I suspect it’s just a matter of time before a reporter notices PH3, phosphine, in one of the study’s models; and remembers the occasional published reports of phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus.7
Although phosphine might be a biosignature, the odds of life on Venus are almost nil, and they’re even less for Jannsen.
Diamonds are another matter.
Like a Diamond in the Sky?
Haven Giguere’s illustration: 55 Cancri e as a ‘diamond planet’. YaleNews (2012)
“Nearby super-Earth likely a diamond planet“ “New research led by Yale University scientists suggests that a rocky planet twice Earth’s size orbiting a nearby star is a diamond planet.” YaleNews (October 11, 2012)
“New research led by Yale University scientists suggests that a rocky planet twice Earth’s size orbiting a nearby star is a diamond planet.
“‘This is our first glimpse of a rocky world with a fundamentally different chemistry from Earth,’ said lead researcher Nikku Madhusudhan, a Yale postdoctoral researcher in physics and astronomy. ‘The surface of this planet is likely covered in graphite and diamond rather than water and granite.’…”
As I said earlier: reporters and editors deal with deadlines, headlines are supposed to grab attention, and Janssen was discovered in 2004. Under the circumstance, I’m impressed when an article clarifies whether “big” refers to width or mass.
“…The width of the planet is about twice that of Earth and is around 9 times heavier than Earth. According to the information shared by NASA, this exoplanet is known as 55 Cancri e….” (“NASA Discovers Exoplanet Made Of Diamond And 9 Times Bigger Than Earth“, Curated by Buzz Staff, News18, Delhi, India (May 11, 2024))
However, I’m not clear on where “the information shared by NASA” came from. NASA does have 55 Cancri e-related content, but it also gives Janssen’s mass as “7.99 Earths”.8
Maybe the “around 9 times heavier” thing came from truncating “7.99″. I don’t know.
Carbon Planets: Carbides and Maybe Diamonds
I have to admit that ‘diamond planet’ is a catchy phrase.
And Janssen may, in fact, have “a fundamentally different chemistry from Earth”. Which isn’t, actually, a new idea.
The Solar System’s inner planets are mostly silicates, “rocks”, and metals like iron. Much of the stuff we call rocks are silicates: compounds of oxygen and silicone.
At least since 2005, scientists have been saying that an exoplanet’s “rocks” might be made of elements other than oxygen and silicone. Like, for example, carbon and silicone. A “carbon planet” could have an iron-rich core with a mantle of silicon carbide.
And, if there’s enough pressure down where the planet’s mostly carbon, there could be diamonds instead of graphite.
Since Janssen’s sun has significantly more carbon than ours, it may really be a “diamond planet”.9 If so, finding proof will take time.
“A secondary atmosphere on the rocky Exoplanet 55 Cancri e” Renyu Hu, Aaron Bello-Arufe, Michael Zhang, Kimberly Paragas, Mantas Zilinskas, Christiaan van Buchem, Michael Bess, Jayshil Patel, Yuichi Ito, Mario Damiano, Markus Scheucher, Apurva V. Oza, Heather A. Knutson, Yamila Miguel, Diana Dragomir, Alexis Brandeker, Brice-Olivier Demory; preprint draft of paper published in Nature (May 8, 2024) (submitted May 8, 2024) via arXiv, Cornell University
Renyu Hu (Dr. Renyu Hu: Ph.D. in planetary science MIT (2013); M.S. Astrophysics, Tsinghua University (2009); Diplome d’Ingenieur, Ecole Centrale Paris (2009); B.S. Mathematics and Physics, Tsinghua University (2007))
Preprint drafts in Cornell University’s arXiv, a selection from the last dozen years
“A secondary atmosphere on the rocky Exoplanet 55 Cancri e” Renyu Hu, Aaron Bello-Arufe, Michael Zhang, Kimberly Paragas, Mantas Zilinskas, Christiaan van Buchem, Michael Bess, Jayshil Patel, Yuichi Ito, Mario Damiano, Markus Scheucher, Apurva V. Oza, Heather A. Knutson, Yamila Miguel, Diana Dragomir, Alexis Brandeker, Brice-Olivier Demory; Nature (May 8, 2024) (submitted May 8, 2024)
“The Transient Outgassed Atmosphere of 55 Cancri e” Kevin Heng (submitted August 11, 2023; The Astrophysical Journal Letters (October 10, 2023) (submitted August 11, 2023; last revised September 27, 2023 (this version, v2))
“Detection of an atmosphere around the super-Earth 55 Cancri e” A. Tsiaras, M. Rocchetto, I. P. Waldmann, O. Venot, R. Varley, G. Morello, M. Damiano, G. Tinetti, E. J. Barton, S. N. Yurchenko, J. Tennyson; The Astrophysical Journal (March 24, 2016) (submitted November 28, 2015 (v1); last revised February 7, 2016 (this version, v2))
“55 Cancri: Stellar Astrophysical Parameters, a Planet in the Habitable Zone, and Implications for the Radius of a Transiting Super-Earth” Kaspar von Braun, Tabetha S. Boyajian, Theo A. ten Brummelaar, Stephen R. Kane, Gerard T. van Belle, David R. Ciardi, Sean N. Raymond, Mercedes Lopez-Morales, Harold A. McAlister, Gail Schaefer, Stephen T. Ridgway, Laszlo Sturmann, Judit Sturmann, Russel White, Nils H. Turner, Chris Farrington, P.J. Goldfinger; The Astrophysical Journal (September 26, 2011) (submitted June 6, 2011; last revised July 22, 2011 (this version, v2)
“A secondary atmosphere on the rocky Exoplanet 55 Cancri e” Renyu Hu, Aaron Bello-Arufe, Michael Zhang, Kimberly Paragas, Mantas Zilinskas, Christiaan van Buchem, Michael Bess, Jayshil Patel, Yuichi Ito, Mario Damiano, Markus Scheucher, Apurva V. Oza, Heather A. Knutson, Yamila Miguel, Diana Dragomir, Alexis Brandeker, Brice-Olivier Demory; Nature (May 8, 2024) (submitted May 8, 2024) via arXiv, Cornell University
“Measured Spin-Orbit Alignment of Ultra-Short Period Super-Earth 55 Cancri e” Lily L. Zhao, Vedad Kunovac, John M. Brewer, Joe Llama, Sarah C. Millholland, Christina Hedges, Andrew E. Szymkowiak, Rachael M. Roettenbacher, Samuel H. C. Cabot, Sam A. Weiss, Debra A. Fischer; Nature Astronomy (February 2023) (submitted December 7, 2022; last revised 9 Dec 2022 (this version, v2)) via arXiv, Cornell University
“A Possible Carbon-rich Interior in Super-Earth 55 Cancri e” Nikku Madhusudhan, Kanani K. M. Lee, Olivier Mousis; preprint draft of paper published in The Astrophysical Journal (November 10, 2012) (submitted October 9, 2012) via arXiv, Cornell University
“A Possible Carbon-rich Interior in Super-Earth 55 Cancri e” Nikku Madhusudhan, Kanani K. M. Lee, Olivier Mousis; preprint draft of paper published in The Astrophysical Journal (November 10, 2012) (submitted October 9, 2012) via arXiv, Cornell University
“Extrasolar Carbon Planets” Marc J. Kuchner, S. Seager; submitted to The Astrophysical Journal (no publication date found) (submitted on April 8, 2005 (v1), last revised 2 May 2, 2005 (this version, v2)) via arXiv, Cornell University
Something new each Saturday.
Life, the universe and my circumstances permitting. I'm focusing on 'family stories' at the moment. ("A Change of Pace: Family Stories" (11/23/2024))
Blog - David Torkington
Spiritual theologian, author and speaker, specializing in prayer, Christian spirituality and mystical theology [the kind that makes sense-BHG]
I was born in 1951. I'm a husband, father and grandfather. One of the kids graduated from college in December, 2008, and is helping her husband run businesses and raise my granddaughter; another is a cartoonist and artist; #3 daughter is a writer; my son is developing a digital game with #3 and #1 daughters. I'm also a writer and artist.
Particularly since we’ve had our own brouhahas: including analogs of the SSBL vs. Huxley embarrassment. Repetition reduces their shock value.
