Historical Astronomy Magazines Online and DVD

Excellent astronomy magazines have come and gone throughout the past several hundred years, and the time has come to start digitizing microfilm, microfiche, or printed copies of all these magazines and journals, and make them available at an affordable price to individuals and institutions on DVD and via the Internet.  First on my list? Popular Astronomy, which was published from 1893 until 1951 at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, a worthy predecessor to Sky & Telescope.

Some of the volumes of Popular Astronomy are available online, thanks to the HathiTrust Digital Library:

Volume 1, 1893
Volume 2, 1894
Volume 3, 1895
Volume 4, 1896
Volume 5, 1897
Volume 6, 1898
Volume 7, 1899
Volume 8, 1900
Volume 9, 1901
Volume 10, 1902
Volume 11, 1903
Volume 12, 1904
Volume 13, 1905
Volume 14, 1906
Volume 15, 1907
Volume 16, 1908
Volume 17, 1909
Volume 18, 1910
Volume 19, 1911
Volume 20, 1912
Volume 21, 1913
Volume 22, 1914
Volume 23, 1915
Volume 24, 1916
Volume 25, 1917
Volume 26, 1918
Volume 27, 1919
Volume 28, 1920
Volume 29, 1921
Volume 30, 1922
Volume 31, 1923
Volume 32, 1924
Volume 33, 1925
Volume 34, 1926
Volume 35, 1927
Volume 36, 1928
Volume 37, 1929
Volume 38, 1930
Volume 39, 1931
Volume 40, 1932
Volume 41, 1933
Volume 42, 1934
Volume 43, 1935
Volume 44, 1936
Volume 45, 1937
Volume 46, 1938
Volume 47, 1939
Volume 48, 1940
Volume 49, 1941
Volume 50, 1942
Volume 51, 1943
Volume 52, 1944
Volume 53, 1945
Volume 54, 1946
Volume 55, 1947
Volume 56, 1948
Volume 57, 1949
Volume 58, 1950
Volume 59, 1951

Office Blues

I’ve been in the work force for 38 years, and I have always had a cubicle with full-height partitions or an office of my own.  As a computer programmer, I’ve always needed to concentrate intensely for most of the work day.  That requires a certain amount of freedom from visual and auditory distractions.  I need to focus.

This week, the work environment I have had throughout my career is being taken away from me, forcibly, as it is for all of us where I work.  We had no input.  No explanation was given.  The decision was made at the highest levels of our company’s management.  We are moving to open office.

We still have cubicles—if you want to call them that—but no partition is higher than eye level when sitting in an office chair.  No more upper shelves, no more book shelves.  Only a work surface and a meager amount of drawer storage underneath.  No more physical barriers between rows.  Just one big, noisy, overilluminated room.  Everything and everyone exposed for all to see from anywhere in the room.

Speaking of illumination, as part of the office “improvements” they have also replaced the warm white fluorescent lights we have used for decades—with a correlated color temperature (CCT) around 3000 to 4000 K—with significantly brighter and bluer LED lights having a CCT of 4000 to 5000K or higher.  It provides a cold, harsh, clinical illumination, not at all like the natural daylight they are trying to emulate.  LEDs are, of course, readily available in the warmer color temperatures of 2700K to 4000K.

I am not alone.  Many of my coworkers—some much younger than me—do not like open office nor the bluer, brighter lights we now have to endure.

This just adds additional stress to an already stressful job.  When is management going to learn that one size does not fit all?

Anyone need a top-flight SAS programmer with good communication, mentoring, and teaching skills?

Further reading…

The Unintended Effects of Open Office Space
https://www.hbs.edu/news/articles/Pages/bernstein-open-offices.aspx

The Anthropic Question

George F. R. Ellis writes in Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology:

9.1 Issue G: The anthropic question: Fine tuning for life
One of the most profound fundamental issues in cosmology is the Anthropic question: why does the Universe have the very special nature required in order that life can exist?  The point is that a great deal of “fine tuning” is required in order that life be possible.  There are many relationships embedded in physical laws that are not explained by physics, but are required for life to be possible; in particular various fundamental constants are highly constrained in their values if life as we know it is to exist:

Ellis goes on to quote Martin Rees.

A universe hospitable to life—what we might call a biophilic universe—has to be special in many ways … Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short lived or too empty to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.

Physics does not tell us anything (yet) about why the fundamental constants and other parameters have the values they do.  These parameters include, for example, the speed of light, the Planck constant, the four fundamental forces and their relative strengths, the mass ratio of the proton and the electron, the fine-structure constant, the cosmological density parameter, Ωtot, relative to the critical density, and so on.  And, why are there four fundamental forces?  Why not five?  Or three?

Also, why do we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions and one time dimension?  Others are possible—even universes with two or more time dimensions.

But it appears that only three spatial dimensions and one time dimension is conducive to life (at least life as we know it), as shown in the diagram above (Whittle 2008).

In fact, altering almost any of the parameters would lead to a sterile universe and we could not exist.  Is the universe fine-tuned for our existence?

Let’s assume for the moment it is.  Where does that lead us?

  1. As our understanding of physics advances, we will eventually understand why these parameters must have the values that they do. -or-
  2. We will eventually learn that some of these parameters could have been different, and still support the existence of life. -or-
  3. God created the universe in such a way that life could exist -or-
  4. We’re overthinking the problem.  We live in a life-supporting universe, so of course we find the parameters are specially tuned to allow life. -or-
  5. There exist many universes with different parameters and we just happen to find ourselves in one that is conducive to life. (The multiverse idea.)

#4 is the anthropic explanation, but a deeper scientific understanding will occur if we find either #1, #2, or #5 to be true.  #3 is problematic for a couple of reasons.  First of all, how was God created?  Also, deism has a long history of explaining phenomena we don’t understand (“God of the gaps”), but in time we are able to understand each phenomenon in turn as science progresses.

The anthropic explanation itself is not controversial.  What is controversial is deciding to what degree fine tuning has occurred and how to explain it.

In recent years, the multiverse idea has become more popular because, for example, if there were a billion big bangs and therefore a billion different universes created, then it should not be at all surprising that we find ourselves in  one with just the right set of parameters to allow our existence.  However, there is one big problem with the multiverse idea.  Not only do we have no physical evidence that a multiverse exists, but we may never be able to obtain evidence that a multiverse exists, due to the cosmological horizon problem1.  If physical evidence of a multiverse is not forthcoming, then in that sense it is not any better than the deistic explanation.

To decide whether or not there is only one combination of parameters that can lead to life we need to rule out all the other combinations, and that is a tall order.  Recent work in this field suggests that there is more than one combination of parameters that could create a universe that is hospitable to life (Hossenfelder 2018).

Thinking now about why our universe is here at all, it seems there are just two possibilities:

(1)  Our universe has a supernatural origin.

(2)  Our universe has a natural origin.

If our universe has a supernatural origin, then what is the origin of the supernatural entity (e.g. God)?  If, on the other hand, our universe had a natural origin (e.g. something was created out of nothing), didn’t something have to exist (laws of physics or whatever) before the universe came into existence?  If so, what created those pre-conditions?

In either case, we are facing an infinite regression.  However, we could avoid the infinite regression by stating that something has to exist outside of time, that is to say, it has no beginning and no ending.  But isn’t this just replacing one infinity with another?

Perhaps there’s another possibility.  Just as a chimpanzee cannot possibly understand quantum mechanics, could it be that human intellect is also fundamentally limited?  Are the questions in the previous two paragraphs meaningless or nonsensical in the context of some higher intelligence?

1We appear to live in a universe that is finite but very much larger than the region that is visible to us now, or ever.

References
G.F.R. Ellis, Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology, Philosophy of Physics (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science), Ed. J. Butterfield and J. Earman (Elsevier, 2006), 1183-1285.
[http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602280]

Sabine Hossenfelder, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (Basic Books, 2018).

M. J. Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat (Princeton and Oxford, 2003).

Mark Whittle, “Fine Tuning and Anthropic Arguments”, Lecture 34, Course No. 1830.  Cosmology: The History and Nature of Our Universe.  The Great Courses, 2008.  DVD.
[https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/cosmology-the-history-and-nature-of-our-universe.html]

Help Save WWV and WWVH!

Read these articles about the proposed elimination of radio time services WWV (Fort Collins, Colorado) and WWVH (Kekaha, Kauai, Hawaii) in 2019:

https://www.voanews.com/a/time-may-be-running-out-for-millions-of-clocks/4554376.html

https://www.nist.gov/director/fy-2019-presidential-budget-request-summary/fundamental-measurement-quantum-science-and

And please sign this petition by September 15:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-funding-nist-stations-wwv-wwvh

WWV continuously broadcasts time signals at 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz, and WWVH does the same at 5, 10, and 15 MHz.

There are many uses for these radio stations.  For example, I have a shortwave radio in my observatory and use the WWV voice time broadcasts on 2.5, 5, and 10 MHz to make sure my GPS clock is properly synchronized, and also use it to set my computer clocks accurately and well as my wristwatch.

WWV and WWVH are an important and reliable “low tech” backup to the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite constellation which can be used to derive accurate times.

Well over 50 million devices use the 60 kHz signal provided by WWVB to allow them to maintain accurate time, and eliminating this particular service would be devastating.  Whether or not shutting down WWVB is part of the proposed budget cuts remains to be seen.

These U.S. Government radio stations have been announcing accurate time since World War II.  We must do all we can to ensure their continued operation.