Skip to main content

Fascinating Physics Nobel

Image result for exoplanets

The Nobel Prize for Physics was split three ways this year: one theoretical cosmologist and (as a duo) two observational astronomers.

Theory and observation nicely balanced out, like matter and anti-matter, each getting half the prize money. That meant that the astronomers each got one-quarter of the money. 

James Peebles, then, the theoretician, was rewarded for his "theoretical discoveries on physical cosmology." He has worked on the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc., and has written influential textbooks teaching the future aspirants to be Nobel-Prize-level Physicists what all of those phrases mean.  I've never taken the courses that use such textbooks, so I won't try to say any more, except that Peebles, a Canadian, is widely credited with turning the "Big Bang" from a speculative and somewhat woolly concept into something precise and quantitative. 

The more interesting half of the award, to my mind, went to the founders of a new branch of astronomy: that engaged in the search for and the cataloging of exoplanets. There are now hundreds of planets cataloged as circling around Sun-like stars other than Sol itself. 

That all began fairly recently, in history-of-astronomy terms. It began in 1995-95, with the observations of new Nobel Laureates Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz.

What the success of the search for exoplanets means is that the planets circling around our familiar Sol are not some sort of anomaly, that they are a normal development. That in turn advances the reasons for suspecting that "we are not alone," that there are planets somewhere where life has developed, and among some of those a subset where consciousness/intelligence has developed. This is all very heartening for those of us who grew up watching the Starship Enterprise on its five-year mission....
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more