From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Oct 01 1999 - 13:23:18 MDT
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Robin Hanson wrote:
> This should warm Robert Bradbury's heart. Here is otherwise puzzling
> evidence that seems consistent with galactic aliens. Comments Amara?
>
> http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/9_18_99/fob1.htm
> "Have Milky Way MACHOs Been Found?" By R. Cowen
>
Saw it a couple of days ago. We really need a good set of photometric
brightnesses through various filters to give us the temperature and
a spectra to determine if they really are white dwarfs. If these are
just at the limit of the Hubble's capabilities we may have to wait a while,
though the article indicates some more observations in December.
Richer, et al, seem to be pretty much in the camp of explaining the
missing mass as White Dwarfs. It looks like using their models
(white dwarfs with hydrogen atmospheres), we are going to need
both temperature and spectral data to sort things out. They are
careful to qualify the uncertainties [due to the fact that the
Hubble Deep Field and Gravitational microlensing observations
are in quite different regions.] Making extrapolations about
the galaxy mass distribution and composition based on looking
through two small but different windows is stretching but it
the best we can do at this point.
> Halo populations of white dwarfs pose serious problems, Richer notes.
> Formation of such objects would have thrown into interstellar space far
> more carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen than observations show. In addition,
> the appearance of galaxies today does not indicate that they once had
> enough sunlike stars to form a large population of halo white dwarfs.
> Theorist Bohdan Paczynski of Princeton University says the findings are
> intriguing, but he notes that by invoking the white dwarfs, the researchers
> "are trading one set of difficulties for another that is equally as difficult."
This got a big chuckle out of me. To get all of those white dwarfs
you have to trade the "missing mass problem", for the "missing
engineering material problem".
Now, what happens if you have a bunch of very large cool, star
enveloping astroengineered objects cruising through inter-galactic
space? (Because inter-galactic space is has the fewest number
of hazards you have to avoid and the lowest background radiation
levels that cause you to waste energy repairing nanotech.)
Well, then the Universe has more mass than we can "see" (which
we know) and thus more gravity, which means you are going to have
a force that should slow down the expansion of the universe.
Now, this appears to be in direct conflict with that other
astronomical problem (involving an accelerating expansion
of the universe). However, if you have all of this missing
engineering material, you probably have to significantly
rework the abundance of elements as the universe evolves
and go back and refigure the supernova brightnesses based
on the age of the universe (and element abundances) when
they explode. We aren't going to see a solution to these
problems anytime soon.
However the one nice thing about Richer's observations is that
they seem to be confirming other observations for a Universe
that is around 12 billion years old.
Its nice to be getting at least one thing resolved.
Given that you get life/engineering materials very early
(in the first few hundreds of million years), especially
with more white dwarfs, that makes for a very long time
(i.e. lots of chances) for intelligent life to develop
and evolve to the SI state. So either (intelligent)
life evolving to an SI state is very very difficult
*or* they aren't especially interested in "colonization"
*or* our "snapshot" of the universe at this time is a
very unique timeslice.
I've been wondering about the Anthropic principle and all of
the "magic" constants/rules in physics. In particular I've
been considering the fact that carbon just happens to be
a great material for wet-biolife *AND* hard-nanolife *AND*
the laws of nuclear physics just happen to make it one
of the materials produced in great abundance during stellar
evolution. Now why *is* that the case?!?
Robert
Other references include:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999astro.ph..8270I&db_key=PRE&high=37740137f609835
and
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999astro.ph..6424R&db_key=PRE&high=37740137f609835
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:22 MST