The Persistent Myth of "Power"

It'll be a situation familiar to any amateur astronomer who participates in a lot of public outreach. A member of the general public will be ogling your enormous (to them), fancy (to them) telescope, and the inevitable question comes up.

"How powerful is it?"

You check to see what eyepiece is in the drawtube, and reply. In one recent instance, the answer was 37x when using a low power Plössl to observe the Perseus Double Cluster with my 8" dobsonian. The visitor seemed almost upset about this. "That's IT? With a telescope THIS BIG?" Unfortunately, his reaction isn't at all surprising, and we have low-end telescope manufacturers and cognitive biases to thank for that.

For most of the general public, the word "telescope" calls to mind the image of small refractors on spindly tripods that are seen in malls and department stores around Christmas time, usually advertising a magnification in the range of 575x. 

What people fail to understand is that this is unscrupulous advertising at its worst. On the surface of the deception is that 575x magnification is shockingly unrealistic in all but the highest-end, large aperture telescopes under the most pristine of observing conditions. Probing deeper, this fancy packaging plants in people's minds the most common misconception that exists about telescopes; that the purpose of a telescope is to magnify distant objects.

This is, of course, a natural assumption because telescopes always magnify the image being observed, but the truth is that magnification is essentially a byproduct of the telescope's primary purpose; to collect and focus light.

This seems counterintuitive to many until you compare a telescope collecting photons to a bucket collecting rain. If you have a bigger, wider bucket, you'll collect more rain. Telescopes work the same way, and it is, in fact, their primary purpose. With larger aperture optics, you will see brighter images with greater resolution. In fact, many amateur astronomers refer to large reflecting telescopes as "light buckets."

What surprises many people is that magnification isn't intrinsically defined by the telescope itself. The telescope's size and quality will dictate an upper limit of useful magnification under perfect seeing conditions, and the telescope's focal length will indicate what magnification you'll get with a specific eyepiece, but swapping eyepieces is what gives you different magnifications. The trick is to learn how to use the right magnification based on observing conditions and the object being observed.

Here we get to another misconception the public has about telescopes; that higher magnification gives a better view. In 95% of targets, the opposite is the case. Typically, astronomers reserve higher magnification for planets and double stars. The vast majority of observable objects in the sky are so large and so dim that high magnification can render them invisible, or only show you a small portion of the object. Take the Andromeda galaxy for example. The angular size of the object in our sky is so huge that most large telescopes can't frame the entire object in the field of view even when using the lowest practical magnification. Increasing the magnification also dims the view, which can be counterproductive when looking at "faint fuzzies."

It's always surprises people when you tell them that most serious deep sky observers actually go out of their way to be able to use the lowest magnification realistically possible with their telescopes. That is, at least. until you explain the bucket metaphor to them. Using a high power eyepiece with a big light bucket on a dim, diffuse object is like trying to bail out a large bucket full of rain water using a plastic coffee stirrer as a straw, while using a low power eyepiece is like bailing it out with a high-capacity pump.

Beyond being a shining example of how hype-filled marketing can give people a poor understanding of science (and make the job of science outreach more difficult), the magnification myth also serves as an illustration of how scientific fact is often at odds with what most people see as common sense. The truth is that our cognitive biases serve a purpose to us from an evolutionary standpoint. They help us organize the world into what makes sense and what doesn't based on the limited information provided by our senses and perception. This allows us to go about our daily lives without getting bogged down by sensory overload. Reality, however, is much more subtle and complex than the seemingly simple simulacrum filtered through our sensory restrictions and cognitive limitations. When our common sense breaks down under new contradictory data, the scientific method gives us a way of expanding the reach of our knowledge beyond what our senses and biases limit us to.

The real universe is far grander than the one our perception limits us to. To get the big picture, we must learn to use the right magnification.

The Intrinsic Knowability of the Past

Among the general population, and especially in the United States, scientific theories concerning how things were in the past such as the theories of evolution and the big bang are politically controversial. I say politically controversial, because there is no scientific controversy whatsoever. Unfortunately, there are many political and religious leaders who go to great lengths to deceive the populace as to the real workings of science with disastrous consequences. Feeble rhetorical devices like asking “were you there?” get parroted by individuals whose deep ideologies line up with the deceivers. The “were you there” question is ultimately one of the most insidious arguments by science deniers, but also one of the most fallacious. It is built around the idea that without a direct account by human narrators, the past is fundamentally unknowable.

Unfortunately, as exemplified by fraudsters, perjurers, and people who mistake the planet Venus for an alien spacecraft, human beings are notoriously unreliable narrators. One only needs to look at the “satanic abuse” moral panic of the 80's and 90's to see that people don't have to be deliberately deceitful in order to provide accounts that are 100% baloney. Additionally, the concept of human narrators being the only way to know the past is undermined by the laws of physics themselves. In fact, the past being knowable is a fundamental attribute of the universe we live in.

In general, there are three principles that ensure that at least a partial record of past natural events and phenomena is recorded, and those are the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy, the natural laws governing radioactive decay, and the finite speed of light being a cosmic speed limit.

First of all, matter is energy, and energy can not be created or destroyed. Mass can not be fully converted to other forms of energy, except through nuclear processes. This means that in general, objects that existed in the past often leave a record that they were there. Geological events don't rewrite the records laid down by prior ones, so stratigraphy can be used to read the life story of the earth. A plant or animal may be dead for millions of years, and while its remains may undergo a chemical change and petrify, the remains still exist leaving a record of their past presence on the planet. The moon may not be in its original material form, but by studying its orbit and composition, we understand that all of the material that makes up the moon was once a part of the earth before a cataclysmic collision between worlds ejected the matter that would one day accrete to form our natural satellite. Likewise, a record of the age of all of these things is knowable due to to the constants of radioactive decay.

Fossilized remains of Tyrannosaurus - photo from Wikipedia

The finite and unchanging speed of light means that we have a perpetual visual record of the past. When we observe distant corners of the universe through telescopes, we look into the distant past as well. We can see galaxies and stars dating back to the earliest generations when light first began to propagate through space. When looking at the Andromeda galaxy through a backyard telescope, we are looking directly at the time when wooly mammoths and glyptodonts roamed the grasslands of the desert southwest during the ice age. By observing galactic spectra, we can measure the rate of universal expansion and even see how quickly that expansion is accelerating. From there we can see how long ago the universe itself began.

The Andromeda Galaxy (M31) - Photo from Wikipedia

These key thing to understand is that these principles were not imagined by mankind; they were discovered. They are fundamental truths that were waiting to be found. We are slave to them, as they govern everything in our experience. No amount of wishful thinking can change the fact that these principles provide an objective record of the nature of the past.

People may not be reliable narrators, but if there's one thing science has taught us it's that the universe itself is, and we must be willing to listen to the stories it has to tell us.

SUPER SCIENCE MASHUP

A new Science-centric monthly event for the grown-up set is coming to Bristol Brewery at Ivywild School.  SUPER SCIENCE MASHUP is an event styled as a late-night show that tackles both good and bad science in popular culture with demonstrations, presentations, audience participation, expert panels, comedy, music, trivia, telescope viewings, and a cash bar. The event is hosted by Kyle Sanders, author of the excellent webcomic Carbon Dating, and co-hosted by Yours Truly!

September’s event will take place on Monday the 22nd, doors at 6:30, with programming beginning at 7 and lasting until 8:30. This event is titled “Breaking Beer” in the style of AMC’s hit show Breaking Bad, and is all about common misconceptions of chemistry. Are chemicals bad for you? What’s a toxin? Do hangover cures really work? Demonstrations will include the science and chemistry of beer with Bristol’s brewmasters. The Colorado Springs Astronomical Society will also be providing live telescope viewings on the patio, weather permitting.

SUPER SCIENCE MASHUP is produced in partnership between the Colorado Springs Astronomical Society and the Pikes Peak Skeptics Society. PPSS is a volunteer organization for the promotion of science education and critical thinking.

Monday, September 22nd, 7pm

Bristol Brewing Company
1604 S. Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80905

Rocket Science and Moon Myths: THE MOVIE

Last week's lectures at the Penrose Library are now available to watch in GLORIOUS VIDEO on the YouTubes!

Part 1, presented by Yours Truly:

Part 2, presented by Marlowe Cassetti:

Wake Up and Smell the Media

Like many amateur astronomers, I'm a member of an organization called the Astronomical League. The A.L. is a sort of organizational body that helps coordinate the efforts of astronomy clubs throughout the United States. The A.L. puts out a quarterly publication called "The Reflector" which updates members on exciting news in the world of amateur astronomy, as well as highlights particularly exceptional efforts by member organizations in certain areas such as outreach and citizen science.

Last year, The Reflector published a special issue devoted to the problem of trying to increase outreach efforts and attract more young people to the hobby due to the fact that the amateur astronomy community is "graying." The letters page in the June 2013 issue, however, was revealing as to the true cause of why a younger crowd is turning away from stargazing. While many assigned blame to any number of causes, all of them were terribly myopic in failing to see the problem right in front of their faces. Reading that letters page filled me with very little hope for the future of the hobby. This lack of hope wasn't for the reasons given by other concerned astronomers. In fact, it's the attitudes many amateur astronomers have towards the “distractions” in the modern world that are more at fault than the distractions themselves in driving nails into the hobby's coffin.

Over the last two years of reading The Reflector, the letters page of magazines like Astronomy and Sky & Telescope, and the Cloudy Nights astronomy forums, I've seen blame for the "graying" of the hobby leveled against an unfathomable number of inane targets such as social networking sites, sports, video games, television, popular music, iPods and smartphones. The problem is there will always be new forms of media, and amateur astronomers face a choice; to embrace the new media and use it as a tool to promote the hobby, or retreat into an angry, insular self-pity spiral that will drive away young people with a budding interest in space science.

I'm 31 years old, and I got into amateur astronomy when I was 10. My “gateway drug” that triggered an initial interest in space science was deeply rooted in the popular media. Specifically, it was one of the most iconic and heavily watched TV shows from 1986 to 1993; Star Trek the Next Generation. That show captured my imagination from the time I was 5 years old, and got me interested in space exploration and (later) observational astronomy. Media can be a powerful tool, and unfortunately it has been deeply underutilized in the last few years for this purpose. Sadly, the people who have the most power and responsibility to do so are also shunning media and technology.

A startling example of this luddite attitude came to my attention by way of the Cloudy Nights astronomy forums during the lead-up to the Neil DeGrasse Tyson-hosted remake of “COSMOS.” The amount of negativity aimed at the series on Cloudy Nights was utterly staggering. Everything from the way the trailer was edited to the choice of network were being slammed by belligerent astronomers on a nostalgia trip, and the controversy didn't die down when the series aired. The show became an all but forbidden subject on the forums due to the vitriol being spouted. All of these bitter fogeys were failing to recognize some fairly important points:

• If you were to place a modern-day COSMOS series on PBS today, the only people who would wind up watching it are people who would be watching the original COSMOS anyway. It would reach a much smaller audience than the original and would instantly fade into obscurity. I know this is a blunt way of saying it, but it's the truth.
• By placing it on a major network with a reputation for exciting programming and advertising it broadly to the masses, it will gain an enormous audience far greater than the original. Also, many of these individuals fail to recognize the programming differences between Fox NETWORK and Fox NEWS which are actually managed in a significantly different fashion despite sharing a parent company.
• The new COSMOS, if successful, could attract a vast amount of fresh interest in astronomy. It could easily be the biggest draw to the hobby in the last 30 years.

Are you beginning to see the problem yet? Simultaneously complaining about the show and complaining about a lack of interest in the hobby exposes a deep and saddening level of cognitive dissonance, and the seeds of a vicious, self-defeating cycle begin to develop. First, complain about how new media is drawing attention away from astronomy. Second, when somebody finds a way to use the new media to astronomy's advantage, get angry and shut it down because “it isn't how we did things in my day.” Step 3; retreat into self pity because there isn't enough interest in the hobby.

The accusations against social networking sites are also ludicrous given the fact that science advocates like Phil Plait, Adam Savage, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Elise Andrew (curator of “I Fucking Love Science”) have been using Twitter and Facebook to enormous effect to generate and maintain interest in a multitude of science topics. Elise Andrew's page has just shy of 7 million followers and is growing every day. She not only uses her page to publicize recent developments in science, but also to dispel common myths and misconceptions about science. It is a tremendous force for good on the social networking sites, in spite of the crude name. The blame being placed on sports, popular music and iPods is utterly baffling to me. Sports and music have always been around. Also, iPods are no more a threat to amateur astronomy than the Sony Walkman was. To blame popular music and iPods on the decline in amateur astronomy is like blaming it on Irving Berlin and the phonograph. These arguments reek of moral panic, and the less said about them the better.

When it comes to video games, it is very true that very few have anything in the way of legitimate educational content. Regardless, I've seen firsthand the potential of this form of media to spread interest in STEM fields. Last year I was participating in a solar astronomy demonstration for an outreach event at the Space Foundation Discovery Center in Colorado Springs. The event had activities for the kids, a meet and greet with former I.S.S. Commander Leroy Chiao, and a seminar for the grown-ups on how technology created for space exploration has been repurposed for the beer brewing industry. One surprise that came out of the event was talking to multiple parents who brought their children to the event because the kids had developed an interest in rocketry and space exploration because of a video game, specifically “Kerbal Space Program.” Having since played the game, I can see why this fun and funny game can be a powerful draw, and its realistic depictions of physics are impressive.

Smartphones, tablets and similar devices are derided as well, but this misses the fact that they can be powerful tools in the hands of beginning amateur astronomers. Afocal adapters built for iPhones are ushering in a whole new generation of entry-level astrophotography. Modern computer-pointed telescopes can be connected by WiFi to iPads and iPhones. Some of our club members do amazing things at outreach events with an iPad to do an integrated telescope and multimedia presentation. In a way, they combine the power of all of the other forms of media discussed here into a tool that is greater than the sum of its parts, one that can make the experience of beginning astronomy much more engrossing.

Technology and media are not enemies of amateur astronomy. They are powerful tools that can be used to bring newcomers into the hobby IF, and ONLY IF, we make the choice to use them effectively. Unfortunately the only barrier is the attitudes of the amateur astronomers themselves. Science outreach needs to evolve or die, and far too many astronomers are more than content to roll over and stop breathing. The interest is there. The tools are RIGHT THERE. Unfortunately (and I've seen this manifested by young prospective members who come to one meeting of an astronomy club and never come back as well as hearing feedback from the general public at outreach events), it's the stodgy attitude of the amateur astronomy community as a whole that's doing an EXCELLENT job of turning the potentially interested youth off of the hobby forever.

This cognitive dissonance and shifting of blame needs to end NOW or the hobby of amateur astronomy, as well as the future of all STEM fields in the United States, will be deader than a doornail. We have the tools, and we need to use them. Shaking our fists at the youth of today while ranting about the Pokemon and the Hippity Hop music does us no good whatsoever, and in time will only hasten the demise of scientific interest and literacy.

It's time to wake up and smell the media.

Live Event - Rocket Science and Moon Myths

Tomorrow, August 25th, join me at Rocket Science and Moon Myths, a fascinating and entertaining pair of lectures in the Carnegie Reading Room of the Penrose Library in downtown Colorado Springs!

The opening talk of the evening will be yours truly, giving a presentation entitled "Moon Myth Media Mayhem." From the moon's perceived effect on human behavior to the media frenzy over the "Supermoon," my talk will offer a revealing insight into how common misconceptions about the moon say more about us and our logical failings than they do about our natural satellite.

The keynote speaker will be former NASA engineer and mission planner Marlowe Cassetti talking about his experiences in the Apollo program. Mr. Cassetti was a key figure in the space program from Mercury to Skylab, and will give a unique insight into the scientific and technological hurdles that had to be overcome.

After the lectures there will be a Q&A panel. Talks start at 6:30 and admission is free. Be there, AND BE SQUARE!

PPLD Penrose Library
20 N. Cascade Ave
Colorado Springs, CO 80903

Crowdsourcing For Science

"Crowdsourcing" is one of the hottest buzzwords in the business world right now. In a nutshell, it means outsourcing the risk and hard work of a venture to the willing masses. With websites like Kickstarter or Indiegogo, it amounts to a way of skirting around traditional forms of venture capital by funding business and invention startups by way of preorders and donations from a product's target audience.

Crowdsourcing, however, is nothing new in the sciences. Programs like SETI@Home and Folding@Home have been crowdsourcing computer power for scientific data analysis for nearly two decades, and projects like Galaxy Zoo have more recently given enthusiasts a more hands-on way of processing data.

The SETI@home client, analyzing data from radio observatories

There is, however, a much older form of crowdsourcing in science that goes back more than a century, and is focused around two organizations that have long been pillars of the amateur astronomy community; The Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO) and the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO).

The involvement in the scientific process for members of these organizations is much deeper than merely sorting through pictures as one does when participating in Galaxy Zoo; observers for AAVSO and ALPO are extremely active in the actual gathering of scientific data, and observations made by members frequently winds up being published in prestigious journals. Numerous active members of AAVSO have even been listed as co-authors on numerous studies that make extensive use of their data. This is an enormous accomplishment for any devoted hobbyist!

AAVSO is devoted to the study of Variable Stars, stars that fluctuate in brightness as observed from earth. By taking measurements of the rate and frequency at which these stars vary in brightness, much can be learned about the size, mass, and life expectancy of the star as well as what mechanism is responsible for the varying brightness. Observers are able to measure these light curves both by visual observation and the process of photometry.

ALPO, on the other hand, keeps its studies closer to home. ALPO observers keep an eye on the solar system, watching for any changes. Amateur Astronomers with ALPO have been the first to raise alarms about impact events on Jupiter and the moon and changing storm patterns on Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Often they are the first to raise alarms of changes in the Solar System which are later observed and studied in depth by large observatories and Hubble.

While many laypersons may be familiar with the fact that many comets and asteroids have been discovered by amateurs, few among the general public truly understand just how critical the vigilance and dedication of amateur astronomers are to the pursuit of astronomy. Without their input, data, and hard work, progress in many corners of the field of astronomy would screech to a standstill due to lack of manpower and funding. To me, this underscores the lack of understanding the general public has about science and just how much of a cooperative human endeavor science truly is.

The Inescapability of Science

Science is everywhere and it permeates every facet of our existence. If you doubt that, consider this; you likely have in your pocket at this very moment a tiny electronic device you can use to communicate via radio signals with a robot in space that will instantaneously interface with a worldwide network of highly advanced thinking machines and give you driving directions. That robot in outer space has to be calibrated by a highly-trained team of military engineers on a regular basis to compensate for inaccuracies introduced by the time dilation effects originally predicted by Albert Einstein due to the speed at which they travel in relation to the earth.

Think about that for a moment! Your everyday use of Google Maps on your smartphone to get directions to a restaurant across town is fundamentally dependent on a crack team of satellite jockeys stationed outside of Colorado Springs. Their primary task is to calculate the difference in the passage of time between that experienced on the ground and from the vantage point of the satellite. This difference in the passage of time is induced by the satellite's extraordinary speeds and the warp in space that is the gravitational field of the earth. Time is literally slowing down on the satellite, and that difference has to be adjusted for to keep triangulation errors from creeping into the measurements displayed on your phone.

From relativistic physics governing our GPS receivers to evolutionary biology accounting for the antibiotics you take for an infection, every single facet of the modern world is infused with science. There is no escaping it, and no surviving without it. In spite of the stupefying degree to which it governs our daily lives, scientific literacy is at a staggering low point. Between zealous religious leaders, oil company executives, and even advertizing agencies for yogurt companies, there are billions of dollars invested in keeping a true understanding of science out of the minds of the common people. Worse than that, these campaigns have the added effect of sowing distrust of the scientific community by making science appear to be the exclusive domain of a small elite.

As an amateur astronomer, I have been actively involved in science outreach projects for close to a decade. In that time I have learned a sobering fact; there is abundant enthusiasm and interest in science among the general public, but there is a deep gulf between that enthusiasm and an understanding of what science is on a fundamental level. The scientific method is barely taught in our nation's classrooms, usually being presented in the most fleeting passing if mentioned at all. As a result, the vast majority of Americans don't realize that science is a process and a technique for sorting out objective fact from assumption and fallacy. Instead, the common perception of science is one of an obtuse collection of arbitrarily decided-upon facts and figures collected in dusty volumes somewhere. Perhaps the worst aspect of this misconception of science is that it makes people think they can pick and choose which aspects of science are correct based on their individual desires and prejudices. Nothing could be further from the truth! All facets of science are deeply interwoven, and to throw out one scientific discipline due to your own prejudices means throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As Neil Degrasse Tyson famously put it, the great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not. There is no greater testament to this fundamental principle than the fact that our smartphones, antibiotics, eyeglasses and car stereos continue to work regardless of how many people choose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the findings of the scientific method. Our modern world continues to function, in spite of the vocal protests of an ignorant majority.

The saddest thing is that an understanding of the principles of science is not outside the grasp of common folk. It is, in fact, surprisingly simple given that you approach it with an understanding of the process of the scientific method. What most people don't realize is that the bulk of the grunt work of science, the painstaking process of data gathering, is not carried out by a small elite. Rather, the vast majority of scientists toiling in the trenches of experiment and observation to further our understanding of the world are ordinary people without a formal education who have devoted their free time to science as a labor of love. From amateur astronomers monitoring variable star light curves and asteroid orbits in their makeshift backyard observatories, to the armies of volunteers who allow paleontology and archaeology excavations to proceed on minimal funding, these "Citizen Scientists" are the backbone upon which scientific advances are propelled forward.

It may be easy to dismiss Citizen Scientists as mere hobbyists, but that is a gross underestimation of them. Indeed, due to the small (and perpetually shrinking) amounts of funding allocated to pure research, a vast number of worthy projects would stall in their tracks without the devoted work of these passionate individuals. Make no mistake about it; citizen scientists are SCIENTISTS in the purest sense of the word. Most "professional" scientists look on citizen scientists as colleagues as opposed to inferiors due to the simple fact that the scientific endeavor would come to a standstill without them.

In my science outreach efforts, I try to make a point to show people that the universe is not only knowable, but that an understanding of science on a fundamental level is accessible to everybody. All it takes is enthusiasm, dedication and discipline.

We're about to take a journey through the trenches of the scientific community, understanding the profound way every average citizen can further our understanding of the universe in which we live. Along the way you may find your own calling on the path to being a Citizen Scientist.

* * *

About the Author:

Tristan J. Schwartz is a freelance astronomy writer and science communicator living in Colorado Springs, CO, where he has been actively involved with the Colorado Springs Astronomical Society for four years. Until 2010, Tristan lived in Mesa, AZ where he performed citizen science for a number of years through his work for the Arizona Museum of Natural History. At the museum he participated in Paleontological lab and field work as well as exhibit design and installation. In 2008 he started an astronomy outreach program at the museum which continues to this day. He was one of the chief designers of the "Origins" exhibit which opened in 2010. Origins presents a timeline of the history of the universe which ties astronomical objects to geological periods on earth through the concept of "lookback time," demonstrating how astronomy is a form of time travel. 

Tristan is a longtime contributor to Cloudy Nights (www.cloudynights.com). Additionally, his first published work is "The Case for Structured Observing" appearing in the July 2014 issue of Sky & Telescope magazine. In the coming months, Tristan will be co-hosting the "Super Science Mashup" live event and podcast in conjunction with the Pikes Peak Skeptics Society,