Many more stars than we thought, new studies suggest

From MSNBC we learn that a new study suggests that the universe has 300 sextillion red dwarfs:

A study suggests the universe could have triple the number of stars scientists previously calculated. For those of you counting at home, the new estimate is 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 300 sextillion.


The study questions a key assumption that astronomers often use: that most galaxies have the same properties as our Milky Way. And that's creating a bit of a stink among astronomers who want a more orderly cosmos.


[ ... ]


A second study led by a Harvard University scientist focuses on a distant "super-Earth" planet and sees clues to the content of its atmosphere — the first of this kind of data for this size planet. It orbits a red dwarf.


Red dwarf stars — about a fifth the size of our sun — burn slowly and last much longer than the bigger, brighter stars, such as the sun in the center of our solar system, said Yale astronomer Pieter van Dokkum.


- Seth Borenstein, “Starry starry starry night: Star count may triple” (12/1/2010, updated)

The finding is thought of as “alarmist,” if not stinky, and as challenging the idea of a “more orderly universe”.

The issue here is that a traditional dictum of cosmology (not a law, just an assumption) is that the universe looks about the same anywhere we look.

That’s one use of the expression “Copernican principle,” sometimes expressed as “Why should we be any different?”

Actually, there is no particular reason for thinking that we are not different - or that we don’t occupy an unusual position, unless an accepted philosophy like materialist atheism requires it as an article of faith. Otherwise, on the materialist view, all is chaos. Hence the “alarm” noted when the basic assumption doesn’t pan out.

By the way, the Copernican Principle has nothing whatever to do with Copernicus and his sun-centred solar system. It is, rather, a way of linking his “sainted” name to a value-laden materialist assumption he would never have endorsed. He was in fact a Platonist, I am told.

Photo: NASA, ESA, and G. Bacon (STScl)

Response to search engine query: What is this blog about?

I was asked to define it for a "deep" search engine group, Feedmil, and replied as follows:

Colliding Universes takes a critical look at cosmology, especially its many unexplained assumptions. Here’s one:

Earth is not special. There must be many planets that host life forms.

Now, what if we find 3000 exoplanets and none host life forms.

Does that suggest that Earth is special?

No, many cosmologists would say. We just haven’t looked hard enough. Find 3000 more.

It becomes obvious that their research is intended to confirm the “not special” view, and that – for both practical and philosophical reasons – it cannot be disconfirmed.

The practical reason is that they can always argue, “They’re out there somewhere.” The philosophical reason is that they are determined to believe what they want to believe.

That’s fine, but don’t call it science.

Incidentally, even if, after a search of 6000, two other planets were found that had life forms, we would know that there are three special planets, ours being one.

But don’t expect the pop science media to interpret it that way.

See also:

"Privileged planet" astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez: Dissing St. Carl Sagan in his own church

Study: Sun not special, therefore alien life should be common?


Galactic habitable zone not unique, computer sim suggests

Does our solar system occupy a unique position in the universe or just an ordinary one?

Rare? Solar systems like ours are rare?

Astronomer argues that we can test whether Earth is fine-tuned as a science lab

"Serious push to find more exoplanets

Exoplanets: Will intelligence be common or rare?

Uncommon Descent Contest 4: Can we save physics by dumping the Copernican principle? - Winner announced

The question is here. It looks at “Does Dark Energy Really Exist? Or does Earth occupy a very unusual place in the universe?” by physicist Timothy Clifton and astrophysicist Pedro G. Ferreira, who argue just that: If we give up the Copernican principle, we do not need dark energy to explain the composition of the universe.(Scientific American, March 23, 2009)

The winning entry is by KeithDP:

I liked it because he made a number of pertinent points that less often raised than they should be:

- "The problem with the principle is how do you define special?" The fact that Earth is the only known home of life should cause it to be classified as special, at least for now.

- "Unlike the multiverse, the theory [re the existence or necessity of dark energy] is testable and efforts are underway to confirm or dismiss it." Indeed. Consider the upcoming SNO+ experiment in Sudbury, Canada, whose awesome facilities I toured recently - which aims to trap a particle of dark matter. That would be a good beginning.

- " ... will we also discover that Earth’s place in the centre of a vast cosmic void is another necessary precondition for life?" That too would be useful, because we could revise current estimates of where to look for life. Too many estimates have been Drake equation-style "choose your own parameters." Fun, sure, but science fiction.

So KeithDP needs to provide me with a current postal address at oleary@sympatico.ca to receive his free copy of the Privileged Planet DVD.

I will shortly judge Question 5: Darwinian fairy tales: Why middle-aged men have shiny scalps: "What is the down side for serious Darwinists to just cutting the “evolutionary psychology” psychodrama loose, and focusing on what real science can say about evolution?"

Now here is KeithDP's entry:

Copernicus’ modest proposition was that the solar system is heliocentric and not geocentric. Centuries later came the Copernican principle: the idea that Earth does not occupy any special position in the universe. In the last few decades this principle has been expanded to include the idea that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth. This idea is often called the Copernican principle of mediocrity. In recent years some astronomers have taken the idea further still and have popularized the notion that there is nothing special about our universe, as it is just one among an infinite number of other universes: a multiverse. Although no evidence supports the theory, and as it is not testable no evidence is ever likely to, it is considered the natural and ultimate culmination of the Copernican principle.

The problem with the principle is how do you define special? In the Rare Earth hypothesis, scientists Ward and Brownlee identify no less than a dozen factors that make complex life possible on Earth. In their view these factors make the Earth, if not special, than certainly very rare. Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez goes further and identifies factors that make the Earth particularly suitable for scientific discovery. In his view the Earth is more than a rare planet; it is a privileged one. Recently some astronomers have questioned the standard model of the universe that holds that at least 70% of the universe is composed of mystery material. They propose this material is unnecessary if we ignore the Copernican principle and assume instead that the Earth lies at or near the centre of a vast cosmic void with far lower density than other regions of space.

Unlike the multiverse, the theory is testable and efforts are underway to confirm or dismiss it. Considering what we have learned about what makes the Earth’s particular location in the solar system and in the galaxy especially suitable for life, will we also discover that Earth’s place in the centre of a vast cosmic void is another necessary precondition for life?

Do we have further need of the Copernican principle? Or is it instead merely a personal philosophical position about humanity’s place? Does it tell us more about the belief system of those who hold it than it does about the universe?

Uncommon Descent Contest 4: Can we save physics by dumping the Copernican principle?

In "Does Dark Energy Really Exist? Or does Earth occupy a very unusual place in the universe?" physicist Timothy Clifton and astrophysicist Pedro G. Ferreira argue just that: If we give up the Copernican principle, we do not need dark energy to explain the composition of the universe. (Scientific American, March 23, 2009)


Copernican principle? Dark energy?


Copernican principle: That's the idea that Earth does not occupy any unusual position in the universe. Indeed, the point was driven home in a recent talk I attended at a science writers' convention. The Copernican principle is widely believed, to be sure, but that tells me nothing one way or the other about whether it is well supported by evidence. And I already know good reasons for doubting it. (Note: It has nothing whatever to do with Copernicus, who wouldn't likely have agreed with it.)


Dark energy? "Dark" means we are in the dark about it. According to the current model, we don't know what 70 percent, approximately, of the cosmos comprises. Whatever that 70% is, it does not respond to light. It also does not answer e-mail, phone mail, or letter mail. Bummer.
Many physicists believe that maybe 25% of this unknown substance is dark matter. The rest is dark energy.


Actually, we don't even know what dark matter is, according to the cautious SNO Plus physicists who are building a huge underground facility in the Creighton Mine in Sudbury, Canada, to trap a particle a year of the stuff. So they hardly wish to give tell-all interviews on dark energy.
Anyway, here are some excerpts from Clifton and Ferreira on whether we need assume that dark energy even exists:

... the existence of dark energy is still so puzzling that some cosmologists are revisiting the fundamental postulates that led them to deduce its existence in the first place. One of these is the product of that earlier revolution: the Copernican principle, that Earth is not in a central or otherwise special position in the universe. If we discard this basic principle, a surprisingly different picture of what could account for the observations emerges.

Most of us are very familiar with the idea that our planet is nothing more than a tiny speck orbiting a typical star, somewhere near the edge of an otherwise unnoteworthy galaxy. In the midst of a universe populated by billions of galaxies that stretch out to our cosmic horizon, we are led to believe that there is nothing special or unique about our location. But what is the evidence for this cosmic humility? And how would we be able to tell if we were in a special place? Astronomers typically gloss over these questions, assuming our own typicality sufficiently obvious to warrant no further discussion. To entertain the notion that we may, in fact, have a special location in the universe is, for many, unthinkable. Nevertheless, that is exactly what some small groups of physicists around the world have recently been considering.

[ ... ]

In the conventional picture, we talk about the expansion of the universe on the whole. It is very much like when we talk about a balloon blowing up: we discuss how big the entire balloon gets, not how much each individual patch of the balloon inflates. But we all have had experience with those annoying party balloons that inflate unevenly. One ring stretches quickly, and the end takes a while to catch up. In an alternative view of the universe, one that jettisons the cosmological principle [a generalization of t he Copernican principle], space, too, expands unevenly. A more complex picture of the cosmos emerges.

[ ... ]

The possibility that we live in the middle of a giant cosmic void is an extreme rejection of the cosmological principle, but there are gentler possibilities. The universe could obey the cosmological principle on large scales, but the smaller voids and filaments that galaxy surveys have discovered might collectively mimic the effects of dark energy. Tirthabir Biswas and Alessio Notari, both at McGill University, as well as Valerio Marra and his collaborators, then at the University of Padua in Italy and the University of Chicago, have studied this idea. In their models, the universe looks like Swiss cheese uniform on the whole but riddled with holes. Consequently, the expansion rate varies slightly from place to place. Rays of light emitted by distant supernovae travel through a multitude of these small voids before reaching us, and the variations in the expansion rate tweak their brightness and redshift. So far, however, the idea does not look very promising. One of us (Clifton), together with Joseph Zuntz of Oxford, recently showed that reproducing the effects of dark energy would take lots of voids of very low density, distributed in a special way.

Does Guillermo Gonzalez have clones? Is this legal?


Well, never mind that for now. For a free copy of the Privileged Planet DVD, here is the question:

To what extent is the Copernican or cosmological principle held for emotional reasons, and not because the evidence supports it? In 400 words, would we be better off or worse off without it?

(Note: I recommend that you read the whole SciAm article before commenting.)
Here are the contest rules.

You must go to Uncommon Descent to comment. Your name will not be put on a mailing list, or sold or given away for any purpose. There is no mailing list. However, if you win and do not send me a mailing address of your choice at oleary@sympatico.ca, I cannot send you your prize.

I will shortly be judging Contest 3.

Dark energy, go gently into that good night ... and take the "Copernican Principle" with you ... ?

In "Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble" (October 01, 2008) Clara Moskowitz of Fox News reports,

Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly devoid of matter.

Excuse me, I'm sure I've heard something like that before somewhere:

And the earth was without form, and void

It wasn't in a science class, but hey.

The concept of "dark energy" - a mysterious force no one understands - was developed to explain the universe today. But many scientists would like to get rid of dark energy as a concept because it is mysterious, which is not good for business.

And, as Moskowitz notes,

If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark energy as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.

Ah, but, (diabolical music) - Cue The Devil:

One problem with the void idea is that it negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn't special.

When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science.

Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.

"This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place," Clifton told SPACE.com. "The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle."

Trouble is, the "Copernican Principle" was fashionable rot popularized by pop astronomer Carl Sagan, in part to promote theories about space aliens that supported science kitsch like the Drake Equation (= calculate your own likelihood of meeting a space alien).

It never had anything to do with Copernicus who would certainly have disowned it.

Earth could very well be in a giant bubble. We already know that it is in a very unusual position.

Anyway, the Joint Dark Energy Mission of NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy hopes to test the bubble thing in 2014 or 2015. They ask, Do we really observe galaxies rapidly accelerating away from us or do we observe objects being distorted in a void because, in yet another way, we are in an unusual position? It could look the same.

They hope to discover that the universe is really accelerating.

In Ars Technica, Matt Ford notes

This work represents a major departure from the currently accepted model of the universe, and it rejects a long-held tenet of astronomy and cosmology. Using the currently available data, the authors were unable to show that their model is closer to reality than the commonly accepted CDM description of the universe. Perhaps one of the biggest repercussions of this work, if correct, would be that we could no longer rely on our local measurements to describe the universe as a whole.

So the universe may not turn out to be what we expect? We shall see.

And see also:

"Privileged planet" astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez: Dissing St. Carl Sagan in his own church

Study: Sun not special, therefore alien life should be common?

How important did people think Earth was before Copernicus and Carl Sagan came along and set us straight?

The so-called Copernican revolution was a big theme of Carl Sagan's (= Copernicus showed us that we were not important after all, and Earth is just a "pale blue dot").

A friend points me to mid-twentieth century Brit R. G. Collingwood's accurate assessment of what nonsense that is!:

It is commonly said that its effect was to diminish the importance of the earth in the scheme of things and to teach man that he is only a microscopic parasite on a small speck of cool matter revolving around one of the minor stars. This is an idea both philosophically foolish and historically false. Philosophically foolish, because no philosophical problem, whether connected with the universe, or with man, or the relation between them, is at all affected by considering the relative amount of space they occupy: historically false because the littleness of man in the world has been a familiar theme of reflection. Boethius’s De Consolatione Philosophiae, which has been called the most widely read book of the Middle Ages, contains the following words:

“Thou hast learnt from the astronomical proofs that the whole earth compared with the universe is no greater than a point, that is, compared with the sphere of the heavens, it may only be thought of as having no size at all. Then, of this tiny corner, it is only one-quarter that, according to Ptolemy, is habitable to living things. Take away from this quarter the seas, marshes, and other desert places, and the space left for man hardly even deserves the name of infinitesimal” (Book ii, Prosa vii).

Every educated European for a thousand years before Copernicus knew that passage, and Copernicus had no need to risk condemnation for heresy in order to repeat its substance.

- R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature, Clarendon Press, 1945

My friend writes, "For the record, “a thousand years before Copernicus” is 1500 years before Carl Sagan." Well, yes, but Boethius did not live in the age of spin, and Carl Sagan did. So Sagan's Hollywood continues the spin.

And it spins constantly. We must make a determined effort to get off.

See also: Carl Sagan and celebrity cosmology: Was he the best cosmology could do?

(Note: The image is from Library of Congress: An Illustrated Guide to European Collections. It is a manuscript of Boethius.)

"Privileged planet" astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez: Dissing St. Carl in his own church

My Deprogram column in just-published Salvo 5 deals with "privileged planet" astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, who discovered, at Iowa State University that when atheism goes head-to-head with science in a politically correct environment, atheism wins hands down:

The Privileged Planet takes on the assertion of popular-astronomy saint Carl Sagan that Earth is merely a “pale blue dot”—both insignificant and wholly unremarkable. It clearly explains Sagan’s arguments for such, and then provides overwhelming evidence that they are false. Gonzalez thought that in doing so, his film was merely setting the science record straight.

But no. For the secular elite, Gonzalez—a Christian—is a dangerous heretic. He was dissing St. Carl in his own church, the Smithsonian. To the elite, “religion” is okay if you just stupid-holler for Jesus. But it is dangerous if you provide evidence against materialism.

It certainly proved so for him. Despite an excellent publication record, he was denied tenure.

For me, the telling feature of this story is ... the steady stream of mediocrities who write to me and demand that I recognize that Gonzalez does not deserve tenure.

As a journalist, I try to be evenhanded, but I struggle with a profound distaste for these people. ... Their vicious comments are their odious legacy, whereas Gonzalez’s research is his.

Gonzalez is also featured in the Expelled film, and, from my mailbox today, in a podcast on Intelligent Design: the Future in which he talks about Sagan's

Copernican Principle and his latest research on extrasolar planets. Is our place in the universe special or purposeful? Listen in as Dr. Gonzalez answers that question and shares his future research plans.

He is now at Grove City College in Pennsylvania.