Catalyst: Light Pipes - ABC TV Science

There was a great report on Catalyst last night regarding a new technology that uses natural sunlight to light rooms deep inside office buildings.

There were two technologies discussed - one uses more traditional light tubes to funnel the light inside using a clever array of mirrors and panels. The other uses 2 fluro panels which absorb the light, and then with the help of some blue diodes white light can be emitted.

Now, just to get the costs down....

Fly Gets Cool Glasses

"Pampering pets with designer goods isn't so unusual—and now even your houseflies can get outfitted in style. An entry in a German science-photo competition, this image shows a fly sporting a set of "designer" lenses crafted and set in place with a cutting-edge laser technique. The glasses fit snuggly on the fly's 0.08-inch-wide (2-millimeter-wide) head."
- National Geographic
More...

Photo in the News: Eclipse Photographed by Space Station Crew

"Thousands of people flocked to sites between North Africa and central Asia in search of the best place on Earth to see today's total eclipse of the sun. But the coolest view might not have been on Earth at all.
Members of the Expedition 12 crew aboard the International Space Station were treated to this one-of-a-kind sight early this morning: a view of the moon's shadow passing across the Earth."
- National Geographic via 3QuarksDaily
More...

It's just not Science

It seems a reasonable request: allow an alternate theory of evolution to be taught in science classrooms. Surely, vigorous debate on issues should be encouraged in all classes? Unfortunately, “Intelligent Design” is nothing but church doctrine masquerading as scientific theory. It has no place in science classrooms.

The ID debate has seen a revival of sorts over the past year through a number of important US court cases. The Kansas School Board recently diluated the definition of science, and introduced official skepticism regarding evolution. A school board in Pennsylvania required students to be taught ID alongside evolution in biology class. Soon after, though, eight out of nine board members were not re-elected. The debate can be traced back to a 1987 decision by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state. The ID movement is a response by various Christian groups as they try to get Adam and Eve back in the classroom, at the expense of Charles Darwin. Even Australia’s former Education Minister Brendan Nelson, who holds a degree in medicine, commented last year that if parents wished for their children.to be taught ID then he had no problem with it. While his comments were more reasonable than educators in the US, it was nevertheless disturbing.

Intelligent Design claims that the “irreducible” complexity of the natural world is such that the evolutionary process of natural selection must be wrong. Proponents point to apparent ‘gaps’ in evidence in evoultionary theory and seemingly complex organs, such as the human eye, which bear the mark of a designer. While it is never made explicit, the intelligent designer is presumed to be the omnipotent, omniscent Christian God (although, some Jewish and Muslim groups have also indicated that ID is worthy of consideration.)

As scientific theory, ID falls short in a number of ways. It is near impossible to falsify; it offers no claims that can be scientifically tested and verified. Evolutionary theory has made thousands of claims (most of which remain undisputed). It offers no positive evidence that the complexity present in the world must entail an intelligent designer. Isn’t the complexity merely due to our inabilty to fully understand the world around us? Scientific theories can’t just be asserted and expected to be given equal standing with other theories. While it is acceptable to say that a theory is ‘just’ a theory of how the world is ordered, science gives priority to those theories which are rigorously tested, peer-reviewed in scientific journals, and have been refined through the general scientific process. A scientist cannot simply advance a new theory and expect it to be accepted or even acknowledged without the backing of credible evidence. ID is also not progressive, adaptive or dynamic. After 10 years of ‘research’ it has not published one article in a peer-reviewed journal, it offers no advancement on current science, nor would it open up new areas of investigation.

Despite what the ID movement might think, there is already plenty of healthy controversy, skepticism, and debate in science, particuarly evolutionary theory. As debates such as global warming and GM foods became increasingly important, society must demand a high standard of science. Introducing ID would only lower those standards to the extent that we might as well include Astrology, the Paranormal and Telekinesis while we are at it.

Perhaps judging ID by scientific standards is too narrow? But these are the standards that ID followers want it to be judged by! If they wish to speak in terms of theology, metaphysics or philosophy, that’s fine; just don’t try to call it a scientific theory.

Even as a philosophy ID is problematic. If they wish to assert that the complexity of the natural world necessitates a designer, then surely this designer must be even more complex. Yet, who or what should we attribute to its design? They have simply argued from one complex being to another and provide no compelling reason for stopping there. Of course, ID advocates are invariably believers in a Christian God, and so it is rather convenient that their theory leads to a single Creator. It is here that we see how ID is really just creationism in disguise.

What is most worrying, but perhaps unsurprising, about this debate is how successful the ID movement has been in getting the debate started at all. The reason why we haven’t seen a massive push for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be taught in classrooms, is that its supporters don’t have the money, power and influence of the Christian Right. Nor do they have a President on their side (as far as I know.)

Richard Dawkins, who’s book The Blind Watchmaker is a powerful and reasoned case in favour of evolution, advises: "when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

This article appears in Melbourne University's Student Newspaper Farrago, Edition 1, 2006

Why does dark matter matter?

Ordinary matter are the electrons, protons and neutrons which from the atomic elements like Carbon, Oxygen and Uranium, which in turn form Earth, the Sun and Human beings. This type of matter is able to interact with electromagnetic radiation (essentially ‘light’), is visible by things like telescopes, and is generally well understood.

Cosmologists (people who study the evolution of the Universe) have a pretty good idea of how much matter is in the Universe, but observations of rotating galaxies and the structure of the Universe suggest that there must be something else apart from ordinary matter.

In fact, the observations tell us that ordinary matter makes up only 5% of the mass of the Universe! The other 95% is thought to be made up of dark matter and dark energy. Various dark matter candidates include very fast moving particles such as neutrinos, stuff similar to ordinary matter called MACHOS (massive compact halo objects), and most probably WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles). All this dark matter accounts for around 25% of the ‘missing mass.’ The rest of the universe is made up of something even stranger called dark energy. While it may sound as though it belongs in a Sci-Fi film, it as an attempt to reconcile the expansion of the Universe with the observable energy in the universe. Dark energy can be thought of as a ‘negative’ energy which is ‘pushing’ the universe outwards – although I use these terms very loosely. Both dark matter and dark energy are almost impossible to detect directly because they do not behave like ordinary matter. Instead, scientists theorize based on the indirect effects seen throughout the Universe. While it seems certain that ordinary matter is a very small part of the Universe, it will be sometime before the rest is fully understood.

This article appears in Melbourne University's Student Newspaper Farrago, Edition 2, 2006

Why are rainbows curved?

Why are rainbows curved?

Most people are familiar with the idea that rainbows are a result of sunlight refracting through water droplets in a rain cloud. The observant may have noticed that the sun is usually close to the horizon and behind you when a rainbow appears. But why are they always curved? It’s due to the angle that the light rays are refracted off the water droplets. The light is refracted in any direction by an angle of 40-42 degrees (depending on the wavelength or colour) due to the shape of the water droplet and the fact that its water. So only a small fraction of the light will be refracted back towards you, but as a rain cloud contains billions of water droplets that is still enough light to see the rainbow. To understand how the curve is formed, hold your arm out in front of you and trace out a circle keeping your arm at an angle of 40 degrees to the horizontal. The refracted light follows a path as though it were travelling from the tip of your hand to the top of your arm. The constant angle of refraction creates the arc we see in the sky. We only see a section of the circle, because the horizon blocks out the rest.

Should have given Imran a bowl...

President Bush attempts (unsuccessfully) to play a few shots against a Pakistani school team.
Former captain Imran Khan offered to bowl, but couldn't make it as he was under house arrest.

(Washington Post)

Broken Social Scene at The Corner Hotel

Canadian group Broken Social Scene produced a sterling performance at the Corner Hotel as part of their recent Melbourne tour. Their music is a complex, layered modern rock, which at times pulses urgently and at others drifts, exploring the edges of their melodies. With up to 10 musicians on stage at once, it’s a credit to their ability that they manage to contain and control the various tensions at play. Four guitars, horns, violin and vocals combine with a strong percussion to create a powerful and dense sound, while still ensuring the individual components are heard.

Their two hour set opened with a barrage of tracks from their latest self-titled album, including 7/4 (Shoreline) and Ibi Dreams of Pavement (A better day), and then moved onto a few instrumental numbers and extended versions. The mellower Lover’s Spit was to be the last song, but ignoring the Corner’s mid-week noise restrictions, they brought everyone back on stage to play a rambunctious It’s All Gonna Break.

The band’s collaborative nature and willingness to support local acts was emphasized by Architecture in Helsinki’s trombonist joining them for their Australian gigs. Sarah Seltmann of support act New Buffalo provided vocals for one song, and Pavement’s “Spiral Stairs” added a fifth guitar to another. Broken Social Scene’s eclectic music was also represented in the variety of on-stage personas, straight out of a film like Garden State, yet distinctly Canadian. The understated unshaven indie-rockers, posturing guitarists, dishevelled spectacled geek and Richmond Football fan all shared the stage with a genuine sense of camaraderie. Founder and frontman Kevin Andrews exhorted a generally receptive crowd to “Enjoy your lives!” and this band certainly makes that task a little easier.

An edited version of this article appears in Melbourne University's Student Newspaper Farrago, Edition 2, 2006

Climate scientists censored by Governments

Two strikingly similar cases have recently emerged, one in the US and one in Australia, concerning chief climate scientists claiming that they have been censored because their views are not in line with Government policy. Given President Bush and Prime Minister Howard ‘s position on global warming, it is no surprise that scientists providing evidence against the Government’s would be frowned upon, but the revelation that they were pressured not to speak at all is startling and deeply troubling.

The CSIRO case involves three leading climate change experts who told a Four Corners report that they were advised by superiors that it would best if they didn’t release material which disagreed with Government policy on carbon emissions. The scientists have since left the CSIRO, but believe that an environment of censorship, and self-policing are still common within the organisation. While the threats have usually originated from officials within the organisation, the scientists believe that the pressure was most likely from Government sources. CSIRO management deny the claims and Environment Minister Ian Campbell is adamant that the Government would never seek to stifle debate. In addition to these claims of censorship, funding for renewable energy sources has been dramatically cut, and two energy industry executives have been appointed to the CSIRO’s board. Not exactly a receptive environment for those espousing views counter to the Government’s.

The US case parallels the Australian one, with NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, claiming in a New York Times interview earlier this year, that he has been censored for his views on global warming. He adds: “In my more than three decades in the government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now." Dr. Hansen has been openly critical of the Bush Administration’s current approach to global warming, arguing that there are various affordable measures, currently available, which could be introduced to reduce carbon emissions. Given that part of NASA’s mission statement is to “understand and protect our home planet,” Dr. Hansen says it would be irresponsible if they were to restrict information inline with that aim. He also claims that climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been told to keep quiet on global warming. Both NASA and the NOAA deny the claims, responding that they have always encouraged an open and honest reporting policy.

Commentators have suggested that Hansen’s concerns are evidence of bureaucratic overreach, rather than a concerted attempt at censorship by the Whitehouse. One such bureaucrat was George Deutsch, a former Bush campaign employee who was then employed as a public affairs official at NASA so that he could “make the President look good.” In addition to monitoring Dr. Hansen’s correspondence, Deutsch also tried to alter NASA media releases in order to water down the science and acknowledge “Intelligent Design.” He has since resigned after it was revealed that he lied on his resume. Dr. Hansen believes that this is but one example of the problems scientists from all disciplines face as they try inform and educate the public.

These two cases point towards a disturbing trend in the way science is treated by Government. Rather than listening to the advice of its scientists, the US and Australian Governments prefer to create policy in line with their corporate interests, and then find scientists willing to back them up, silencing those who won’t. This is a continuation of the Australian government’s approach to a variety of issues, where it picks and chooses the knowledge it receives and then feigns innocence when its revealed that it should have known better. We must demand more of our ministers; we must demand that they obtain unbiased evidence and then make considered and informed policy decisions. Given that science is an important factor in debates on pollution, GM foods, reproductive health, stem cell research, and of course climate change it is essential that the most accurate information is offered and provided to policy makers.

Organisations which rely on Government funding for their operations will always be wary of advocating or pursuing a line of evidence which would reflect badly on the Government. In the same way the ABC has always faced the battle of criticizing a Government which pays its wages, the CSIRO occupies a difficult position. The Government would be arrogant to issue direct orders not to have certain scientific papers published, but if they have the final say on which research grants are approved then it would seem reasonable to presume that scientists would feel that certain comments could not be made for fear of losing that funding.

The current atmosphere of fear and intimidation where scientists are reluctant to present evidence which may disagree with the Government policy must be rectified immediately. In Australia, Labor has called for an investigation, and the CSIRO have also indicated they will be pursuing the matter. In the US, various senators on both side of politics have called for a review and NASA’s director emailed the entire staff to restate that a culture of openness is to be supported. We can only hope that scientists follow the lead of Dr. Hansen et al., and speak out against such dangerous forms of censorship.

This article appears in Melbourne University's Student Newspaper Farrago, Edition 2, 2006