Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
WORLD NEWS
SUMMARY
BBC NEWS 24
BULLETIN
PROGRAMMES GUIDE
See also:
05 Aug 99 | Health
Treatments in pipeline
Scientists have developed vaccinations against both Ebola
and Marburg which work on laboratory animals, and there
are promising signs of some therapies that can be used on
victims.
Some experiments use antibodies
from the marrow of Ebola
survivors.
Much of the scientific work
underway is focused on finding the
original source of the disease - the
reservoir.
One project examined thousands
of animals in the rainforests of
West Africa in a bid to isolate those
hosting the virus.
Gonorrhoea:
Gonorrhoea is a serious illness caused by an organism
called Neisseria gonorrhoeae.
WORLD NEWS
SUMMARY
BBC NEWS 24
BULLETIN
See also:
15 Dec 00 | Health
, AIP, 2001
(CMB),
,
, ,
.
CMB ,
.
CMB, ,
, , ,
.
CMB,
CMB.
. , 1
( ), o
CMB (
400.000 Big Bang).
,
,
, ..
Boomerang,
, ,
, 1
,
. Boomerang, , Maxima,
, .
30 2001,
(APS) , Degree Angular Scale
Interferometer (DASI),
( NSF), .
DASI
Boomerang . Boomerang
14 .
,
. ,
( ,
(),
). Boomerang DASI 1.03 1.04, ,
6%. ,
( ). 5%
,
big bang .
,
(
).
CMB 30% 65%, ,
.
Maxima,
, .
,
.
ichael Turner ,
,
. , Turner,
(CMB).
Reuter 8--2001
20 ,
NASA Daniel
Goldin,
.
, Goldin 40 .
,
,
,
.
NASA
lander
2007,
2009 2011
, ,
.
10 -- ,
10 -- 20 ,
,
Goldin George Washington.
Goldin NASA ,
.
, ,
.
NASAJet Propulsion,
, MarsYard,
.
: , .
,
,
.
,
, .
(=, , , )
Mandelbrot
.
.
- -
. ,
.
,
:
, .
.
. .
.
(
, ). ,
,
.
.
, , ,
,
.
1970
. , , ,
.
. .
. .
- computer.
.
, .
.
.
, .
.
, --
.
.
,
, ,
:
,
.
.
,
. ,
8
(strange attractr).
,
- -,
Dr. Matthew A.
Trump
Ilya Prigogine Austin Texas,
.
, ,
.
.
.
.
. ,
,
.
100 ,
.
.
( .
.
(
.
,
.
(
.
( ,
.
(
..
in Superstrings, cosmology, composite structures, eds. S.J. Gates, Jr. and R.N.
Mohapatra, Proc. of Maryland Workshop, March 11-18, 1987 (World Scientific,
Singapore, 1987) 585-593.
ABSTRACT
In conclusion, this is a major new paper by the pioneers in the field, so youre going
to have to read the rest of the paper whether you understand it or not, or at least
convince other people that you did by memorizing all the catch phrases. If youre a
faculty member, just get one of your students to read it for you. If you dont have any
students, probably nobody talks to you anyway, so forget it. If you are a student, good
luck.
*Work not supported. In fact, they told us specifically not to do it.
1. INTRODUCTION
All science other than string theory is garbage\ref{1}. Since string field theory is
becoming more and more a part of everyday life (so far, no disagreement has been
found with experiment\ref{2}), we here apply this formalism to the most important
string, the super G\ref{2}-string\ref{3}. (See also\ref{4}.) Strings also provide the
only known theories of quantum gravity which are too complicated to prove wrong,
and therefore provide a convenient method of turning up our noses at all the ordinary
particle theorists who havent even learned general relativity yet. (Besides, if they
havent learned strings, they can only be phenomenologists anyway. This includes
anybody who still calls strings dual models.) The super G-string can also be used to
10
11
\put(120,20){\line(0,1){40}} \put(100,40){\line(1,1){10}}
\put(110,10){\line(1,1){10}} \put(20,15){\oval(8,10)} \put(20,35){\oval(8,10)}
\put(20,55){\oval(8,10)} \end{picture}
\begin{center} \marginpar{\sc check associativity}
Fig. 1. The interacting G-string 3-point vertex \end{center}
Notice that on the right-hand side of the figure there is only a free string propagator,
while on the left-hand side are 3 strings, into which the propagator is continuously
transformed, without introducing any curvature into the surface. Thus the interacting
G-string follows directly from the free theory. (There have been claims that this
vertex is just an optical illusion. However, the same has been said about the success of
string theory in general.)
*Technically speaking, the term string field is self-contradictory, since, as we all
know, strings dont grow in fields, they grow in vineyards.
3. PATH-INTEGRAL METHODS
Path-integral methods are very convenient for evaluating graphs derived from string
field theory, since they allow us to use the transformations on the 2-dimensional bullsheet resulting from general coordinate and local Weyl scale transformations, also
known as stretching it. We discovered this in \ref{10}. (Everybody else discovered
this much earlier\ref{11}, but we dont recognize them*.) In particular, these graphs
can easily be evaluated by mapping to the upper-half plane:
*\go IN FACT, WE DONT EVEN GO TO THE SAME CONFERENCES THEY
GO TO. OOPS! I GUESS IT WASNT SUCH A GOOD IDEA TO DO THE
FOOTNOTE IN GOTHIC. WELL, SINCE THIS IS SO HARD TO READ, WELL
PUT ALL OUR IMPORTANT RESULTS HERE, SO WE CAN REFERENCE
THEM IN A LATER PAPER. THIS WAY, PEOPLE WONT NOTICE THE
RESULTS UNTIL WE POINT THEM OUT, SINCE THEYRE TOO HARD TO
READ, BECAUSE MOST OF THE GOTHS ARE ALREADY DEAD, OR AT
LEAST NOT DOING PHYSICS. THE RESULTS ARE: WIURW NVWE WE
VWIJR, IJWER WEIWI WEI J INWR IJNNWR. JNWER IWEJNR WERN IJWER
WRG JWNR IJW: JN WRN IWJEROIQEOEJWO WEJNN JOR SCHR{\rm\{\go
O}}DINGER EQUATION WER ER ER G WTJNW JE ROJE WN IJWN!**
**If you cant read the previous footnote, dont worry. Even if you could read it, you
probably couldnt understand it, and even if you could understand it, it wouldnt help
you understand the rest of the paper, which you probably wont understand anyway.
Sometimes we dont know why we even bother to write papers at all. Well, besides
the money.***
***Actually, the money isnt all that great either. At least not for the paper itself.
However, the residuals tend to make up for it. For example, if you would like to see
any of our calculations, in notation which is not symbol-free, it will be very symbolexpensive. Be sure to send all your requests with a self-addressed envelope, and
include a check for $10 per equation, plus $5 shipping and handling. No refunds.
Address your letter to: Money B. Green, Haharishi Intergalactic Institute, Plantville,
Iowa 12345.****
12
4. BRST
Field theory formulations can be straightforwardly derived by the use of
BRST\ref{13} methods. For these purposes it is convenient to expand around flat
space, so we first consider the G$\flat$-string. These methods can be used to prove
that the G-string has 12 sets of auxiliary fields\ref{14l}. The geometry of the field
theory described by Fig. 1 is necessarily commutative, since the geometry of a closed
string is a ring, and only commutative rings are fields. The gauge transformations of
the BRST formulation, known as cordal transformations\ref{15}, change the
geometry of the string so as to produce ropes, or cords:
\setlength{\unitlength}{1mm} \begin{picture}(140,50) \put(60,2){$\kbl$}
\put(60,4){$\kcl$} \put(60,6){$\kcl$} \put(60,8){$\kcl$} \put(60,10){$\kcl$}
13
5. PHENOMEKNOWLEDGE
As for all high-energy physics, all string physics (not to be confused with the oldfashioned topic of particle physics) can be classified into two types: (1) esthetic and
(2) anesthetic. The former type has the advantage that, when it is found that either
nature disagrees with it or it is too complicated for anyone to know if they agree with
it, it can still be published in a science fiction magazine or the science section of a
formerly reputable newspaper. The latter type has the advantage that seminars on it
give needed rest to the many overworked physicists who have spent many sleepless
nights puzzling over theories of the former type. Since most of this paper has so far
been devoted to type-1 physics, we now digress to type-2 as a respite. For those who
dont wish to skip this section, we suggest you now place your index finger on the
heading of the following section, to avoid the usual vicious circle of rereading the
paragraph upon awakening which had been forgotten due to loss of memory in the
pre-catatonic state.
As discussed previously\ref{3}, Kalvin-Klein compactification of the G-string to 4
dimensions can be obtained by giving appropiate $\s$-dependence to the vector index
on the spacetime coordinate $x \sp {\m ( \s )}$. One observable consequence of this
phenomenon is the appearance of extremely miniscule particles\ref{16} emitted by
the compactified dimensions. Supersymmetry is preserved by the SU(3) holomoney
(with flavors $\rm\rlap/c$, \$ , \pounds ), whose cohomology has a topology with
good phenomenology. One useful method to study this behavior is the introduction of
massless background fields, in terms of which an effective action is studied \ref{17}.
This allows us to ignore all the fields which make string theory different from
ordinary supergravity in the first place, and which we really didnt want to have to
learn about anyway.
14
After this work was completed, we became aware that similar results (including
typographical errors) had been obtained in\ref{19}. However, we have given much
neater proofs of the theorems appearing there by ignoring all the important steps.
Also, we have included some results which were omitted from the published version
of\ref{19} due to their being incorrect (see also\ref{20}).
\pictureh
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank God its Friday, for helpful discussions, and for
making\ref{21} available before publication. (He also informed us that He was
independently aware of many of the results obtained here.) Also, we have a lot of
friends who have done nothing worthwhile whatsoever on this topic, which makes us
feel sorry for them. After all, they used to do pretty important stuff way back during
the Middle Ages (i.e., in the era after the Classical Era of dual models and before the
Modern Era of superstrings). So we thank them for many useful conversations, mostly
on the weather and mutual funds\ref{22}. Finally, we acknowledge several people for
correcting sign errors and factors of 2 in an earlier version of this paper, and ask them
to mind their own damn business from now on.
References
[1]
Ka\v c, V., K\ahler, A., Kaku, M., and Kallosh, R., The Ka\sll u\.za-Klein Klan
Jumps on the Rubber-Bandwagon, Katmandu preprint (Feb. 1985).
[2]
Ginsparg, P. and Glashow, S., Phys. Today 39, no. 5 (1986) 7;
A. Skepti\c, On the Feasibility of Experimental Verification of Pain Factors in CliffJumping Theory, Aspen preprint.
[3]
Gates, V., Kangaroo, E., Roachcock, M., and Gall, W.C., The Super G-string,
Unified String Theories, eds. Green, M. and Gross, D., Proc. of Santa Barbarbara
Workshop, Jul. 29 - Aug. 16, 1985 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1986) 729.
[4]
Deser, S., Pirani, F.A.E., and Robinson, D.C., Embedding the G-String, Kings
College preprint (Mar. 1976), almost appeared in Phys. Rev. D14, 3301 (1976).
[5]
Penney, J.C. and Salam, Alekum, Aprons, Borons, Caissons, Canyons, Falcons,
Icons, Morons, Peons, Rayons, and Raisins, ICBM preprint (Feb. 1974);
Kenny Lane, Technicolor in Your Ears and in Your Eyes (and Other Places),
OSU(5) preprint.
[6]
Mike and Tina Turner, Whats Physics Got to Do with It?, Skyrmelab preprint.
[7]
Schr\odinger, E., How to Kill Ka\v c in a Quantum Mechanical Roach Motel
without Using d/dt, Copenhagen preprint, probably not to appear.
15
[8]
Gates, V., Kangaroo, E., Roachcock, M., and Gall, W.C., Stuperspace, Physica
15D, 289-293 (1985).
[9]
Gates, V., Kangaroo, E., Roachcock, M., and Gall, W.C., A NEW String Field
Theory, to appear in NEWcular Physiques Bee, unless we get that same stupid
referee again.
[10]
Kangaroo, E. and Van de Supergraaf, The., Divergences in 2D Frutti
$\s$uper$\s$ymmetric $\s$-Models at One More Loop than Our Last Paper,
Donnybrook preprint (Mar. 1986).
[11]
Dan Freed, Dan Friedan, Dan Freedman, and Dan Zanon, Proc. of Mexico City
Conference, Mexico, D.F., July 1986.
[12]
Witten, E., Nucl. Phys. B268, 253 (1986);
L. Geoconda, A New String Theory Based on Keplerian Polyhedral Dynamics.
[13]
Becchi, C., Rouet, A., Stora, R., and T, Mr., \PL52B, 344 (1974);
Jonathan $\dag$ and Iso Bars, $\hbar$s and Graded Cheese Algebars in the GrinchWarts Superstring, Neveu Demento A1, 332 (1984);
W. Siegheil and Parton Wetback, Enough BRST to Make You Want to Die, Proc.
of Hanna-Barbera Workshop, to appear (Universe Scientific, Phnom Penh, 1987).
[14]
[a]
Almost Never and Pete Best, Auxiliary Fields for the G-String, CERN preprint
85-01 (Jan. 1985);
[b]
The G-String Has 2 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-02 (Feb. 1985);
[c]
The G-string Has 3 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-03 (Mar. 1985);
[d]
The G-String Has 4 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-04 (Apr. 1985);
[e]
The G-String Has 5 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-05 (May 1985);
[f]
The G-String Has 6 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-06 (Jun. 1985);
[g]
The G-String Has 7 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-07 (Jul. 1985);
16
[h]
The G-String Has 8 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-08 (Aug. 1985);
[i]
The G-String Has 9 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-09 (Sep. 1985);
[j]
The G-String Has 10 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-10 (Oct. 1985);
[k]
The G-String Has 11 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-11 (Nov.
1985);
[l]
The G-String Has 12 Sets of Auxiliary Fields, CERN preprint 85-12 (Dec.
1985).
[15]
Banks, T. and Peskin, M.E., Nucl. Phys. B264, 513 (1986).
[16]
Veltman, M., Production of Tini-Wini from Intermediate Vector Boson Decay in
Supersymmetric Theories, Michigan preprint.
[17]
Miguelito Lovelace and James West, Background Field Theory, Rutgers the State
University preprint;
Burt Offering, 16+10 Supergravity, PU preprint.
[18]
Goldarn, P., Gallstone, J., Rabbi, C., and Thoron, C., New Clear Physics B123,
1974 (1974).
[19]
Archimedes, Super G-String Field Theory, Athens preprint ($\D\e\c$., 3rd yr. of
the 7th Olympiad).
[20]
Gervais, J.L. and Neveu, A., Nucl. Phys. B47, 422 (1972).
[21]
God, $\aleph$., The Bible, Testament III, Jerusalem preprint (Tish.
MMMMMDCCXLVI), to appear atop a mount.
[22]
All our friends (until now), Conversation of Energy: $\pa \f / \pa k$, private
gossip.
\picturei $$\face$$
The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory - Canadas eye on the universe
Some 2000 metres underground in a working nickel mine, physicists have
installed one of the worlds most sensitive instruments for observing the
universe. Operational since 1999, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory has
ambitious plans for the future. James Gillies reports.
17
sign
SNO cavity
It all began 1.8 billion years ago when geologists believe that a meteorite struck the
Earth, creating what is now the Sudbury basin in Canada. The impact allowed a rich
seam of nickel-copper ore to rise through the Earths crust around the rim of the
crater. Today the Sudbury basin is circled with the worlds largest concentration of
nickel mines and in one of them, scientists accompany the miners on their morning
descent to the 6800 ft (2000 m) level.
The Sudbury landscape still has an unearthly quality about it. Early mining efforts
stripped away trees to provide fuel for smelting the ore, with the result that in the
1960s the Sudbury basin resembled a moonscape. NASA even sent moonshot
astronauts there for training. Today the trees are coming back, thanks in part to the
mines themselves, where underground nurseries provide warm stable conditions for
trees to grow. All you have to add is light, said Art McDonald, director of the
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) as we stepped off the lift 2000 m underground.
Here the rock is constantly at a temperature of 40C, making for a sticky 1.5 km walk
along the SNO drift - the tunnel connecting the mine shaft to SNOs underground
laboratory.
Cleanliness is the key
Visiting SNO is an adventure in itself. Scientists and miners are indistinguishable in
all but their conversation as they descend in the lift. Overalls, miners lamps and
safety harnesses are the order of the day. Everything to be taken into the lab must be
carefully wrapped in plastic to protect it from the omnipresent mine dust. Arriving at
the lab, boots are rinsed down, clothes are removed and everyone takes a shower
before changing into a clean set of overalls and entering the lab.
Scrupulous attention to cleanliness is one of the keys to SNOs success. Incredibly,
the laboratory maintains class-100 clean-room conditions in the most sensitive areas
and all areas are class-3000 or better. That means that everywhere within the
laboratory there are fewer than 3000 particles of 1 m or larger per 1 m3 of air. A
typical room would give a count of around 100 000 particles and the SNO drift
considerably more. Even more impressive is that these clean conditions were
maintained throughout the construction of the experiment.
The emphasis on purity does not end with the air. Systems for purifying the SNO
detectors light and heavy water fill most of the available space. The 33 m deep, 22 m
diameter chamber that houses the detector is lined with several layers of plastic
material that help to keep the radiation level from uranium and thorium a full nine
orders of magnitude lower than in the surrounding rock.
Herb Chens experiment
SNO began collecting data in 1999, but its history goes back much
further. In 1984 Herb Chen of the University of California at Irvine
first pointed out the advantages of using heavy water as a detector
for solar neutrinos. Two reactions - one sensitive only to electrontype neutrinos, the other sensitive to all neutrino flavours - would
Herb Chen
allow such a detector to measure neutrino oscillations directly. The
18
Creighton mine in Sudbury - among the deepest in the world - was quickly identified
as an ideal place for Chens proposed experiment to be built and the SNO
collaboration held its first meeting in 1984.
There were substantial obstacles to overcome before the experiment could be
realized, not least of which was the cost of the heavy water. It was clear from the start
that industrial partners would have to be found. INCO, the company operating the
Creighton mine, became a key player, putting its infrastructure at SNOs disposal and
blasting out a new cavern for the experiment far away from ongoing mine activity.
Another key partner was found in the form of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,
which provided C$330 million of heavy water on loan, free of charge. In a sense
were doing a greater than C$600 million project for less than C$100 million in terms
of capital cost, explained McDonald.
The experiment was approved in 1990. Excavation took three years and installation
a further five. The detector consists of a 12 m diameter acrylic sphere containing 1000
tonnes of heavy water surrounded by light water and viewed by 10 000
photomultipliers. Filling the sphere with heavy water, flooding the cavern with light
water and calibrating the detector was complete by November 1999, allowing data
taking to begin.
In its first phase of running - to June 2001 - SNOs analysis concentrated on the
measurement of boron-8 electron neutrinos from the Sun. These are detected at SNO
via the charged current process of electron neutrinos interacting with deuterons to
produce two protons and an electron. First results published in 2001, taken together
with Superkamiokandes previous measurement (The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
confirms the oscillation picture) via the elastic scattering of boron-8 neutrinos from
electrons with low sensitivity to neutrino types other than electron neutrinos, provide
compelling evidence for neutrino oscillation.
The next step for SNO was to measure the total boron-8 neutrino flux to give a
complete measurement that is independent of the Superkamiokande result. To do this,
salt has been added to the heavy water. Salt increases SNOs sensitivity to the
flavour-blind process of neutral current neutrino-deuteron interactions, which are
identified by the detection of the photon emitted when the deuterons neutron is
captured. Capture on heavy water results in a 6.25 MeV photon, whereas capture on
chlorine releases an 8.6 MeV photon that is more easily detected. Moreover, the
neutron capture probability in SNOs heavy water is around 25%, whereas in salt it
rises to 85%. Radioactivity levels are also low for this phase of the experiment and
data analysis is under way.
In a third phase of running, scheduled to begin in the second half of 2002, the salt
will be removed and replaced by helium-3-filled proportional counters. These will
give the experiment an independent sensitivity to the neutral current process and
allow distortions in the solar boron-8 spectrum to be measured more accurately than
before.
Supernovae warning
Solar neutrinos form just one strand of SNOs research programme.
The experiments ability to single out electron-neutrino interactions
and its high sensitivity to other neutrino types gives it a powerful tool
for investigating supernovae by observing the time development
between different neutrino types emerging from the explosion.
SNOs data-acquisition system, normally running at around 10 Hz, is
SNO schematic
set up to buffer several hundred events in a window lasting just a few
19
seconds if necessary, and it also alerts the shift crew whenever the event rate rises
significantly. This initiates an analysis procedure, designed to identify whether noise
or physics is responsible for the rise. SNO will be part of the Supernova Early
Warning System (SNEWS) along with the LVD (Gran Sasso), Superkamiokande
(Japan) and Amanda (South Pole) experiments. Signals sent to a central computer in
Japan can be studied for time coincidences and the astronomical community can be
alerted in the case of a supernova. The neutrino burst can precede light by several
hours.
The detectors location 2000 m below a flat surface also makes it a particularly
powerful instrument for observing neutrinos created via cosmic-ray interactions in the
atmosphere. In contrast with detectors under mountains, SNO has a 45 window for
measuring downward-moving neutrinos. A clear distinction between downward and
upward-moving neutrinos will allow SNO to make a model-independent measurement
of atmospheric neutrinos over a three- to four-year timescale.
SNO has a well defined programme until 2006 and ambitious plans thereafter. The
scientists envisage a shift in emphasis towards more subtle neutrino physics and
possible improvements to the SNO detector. Seasonal variations and correlations with
the solar cycle are on the agenda. SNO will also turn its attention to other neutrino
oscillation processes in the Sun.
Canadian scientists are hopeful of extending the laboratory beyond
the one experiment that it currently houses. The Canadian
government has recently launched the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation International Programme to generate world-class
international research facilities in Canada, and Sudbury is a strong
heavy water
contender. Having passed the first round of selection, the laboratory
has been invited to submit a detailed proposal by February. Under this C$30 million
plan, the Sudbury site would acquire a new experimental hall to house at least two
new experiments. Final selection is scheduled for June 2002.
Herb Chen didnt live to see his brainchild realized. He died in 1987, but his
presence at Sudbury is still very strongly felt. Copies of his 1984 Physical Review
Letters paper hang proudly around the laboratory and his portrait graces the entrance.
SNO has put Sudbury firmly on the physics map, but it hasnt lost sight of its roots.
The SNO team is working very hard to accomplish the full physics objectives while
maintaining Herbs memory as a constant inspiration, explained McDonald.
Bose-Einstein condensation
20
Nobel condensate - how alkali metal atoms come together as the temperature is
decreased. The image shows Bose-Einstein condensation at, from left to right, 400,
200, and 50 nK.
Laboratory Profile
SNO cavity
2000 metres underground - excavation of the underground cavity for the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory detector.
21
22
23
which the entire String is being put through its paces is now under way. All systems
are being tested in normal running conditions, during the ramping up and down of the
magnet currents, and during provoked quenches.
String 2
Astrowatch
Astronomers celebrate sight of two million year old baby
A very small, faint galaxy more than 13.4 billion light-years from Earth is creating a
great deal of excitement among astronomers. This protogalaxy, which is just 500
light-years across (a two-hundredth of the size of the Milky Way), is thought to be
one of the building blocks of todays galaxies. It may prove to be an important
missing piece in the puzzle of how and when the first stars and galaxies formed in the
universe.
The discovery was made thanks to the gravitational lensing of light from the distant
protogalaxy by a huge cluster of galaxies along the line of sight. The cluster
effectively magnified the light from the protogalaxy.
The protogalaxy was first identified from images taken from the Hubble Space
Telescope archive, and further observations of its spectrum were made using the two
10 m Keck telescopes in Hawaii. The observations reveal a 2 million year old, 1
million solar mass, galaxy-like object consisting of young hot stars.
Previous galaxies discovered at high redshifts are extremely bright. This is the first
time that a faint protogalaxy has been analysed, owing to the amplification of its
signal by the gravitational lens.
25
Symposium 213
Sponsors to date
SETI Institute,
California
NASA
Astrobiology
Institute
International
Astronomical
Union
Australia
Telescope
National Facility
Virtual Press
Room
An invitation to Who Should
you
Attend
The Great Barrier
Registration
Reef
The Whitsunday
Accommodation
Islands
Plenary
Post Conference
Speakers
Tours
Conference
Register your
Facilities
interest
Newsletter #1
Newsletter #2
Committees
Anglo
Australian
Observatory
Introduction
University of
Western Sydney
26
LATEST NEWS
Hamilton Island special
offer on rooms!
An invitation to you
Plenary Speakers
Newsletter #2
27
28
29
What Next?
Amils is collaborating with different groups of the NASA Astrobiology Institute
to characterize the iron formations of the Tinto River and the eukaryotic
diversity of the system. He is also using conventional and molecular
techniques to characterize the prokaryotic diversity of the river in order to
understand how the system works.
30
Featured Profile:
David Wynn-Williams
31
But the pigment story goes on. Unlike mammals, who have skeletons made
of hard bone which can last for eons, cyanobacteria and other
microorganisms are made simply of fluid contained by a membrane - imagine
a tiny soap bubble filled with water. So when they die, they dont leave
obvious signs or markers telling us where theyve been, like dinosaurs leave
their skeletons behind for us to dig up. But what they do leave behind are
molecules called hopanoids (breakdown products of pigments), lying there in
the rock and soil for anyone to see. Anyone that is, who knows how to look.
32
33
combination of algae and fungi, consists of one mountainous peak with lots
of little peaks on the shoulder of the mountain. Using his catalog of spectra,
he can recognize the little peaks on the shoulder of the mountain and say
with certainty which types of molecules are in a lichen.
34
Click here for a printable version of these ten long-term science goals.
Astrobiology is the scientific study of the living universe; its past, present, and future.
It starts with investigating life on Earth, the only place where life is known to exist,
and extends into the farthest reaches of the cosmos. It ranges in time from the big
bang and continues on into the future.
Astrobiology covers a diverse range of topics which can be categorized under major
questions: Where did life come from? What is its future? Are we alone in the
universe? While these questions have been asked for millennia, rapid advances in the
sciences and the ability to travel out into space have set the stage for a novel scientific
examination. As any such newborn, Astrobiology is growing and maturing rapidly.
Breakthroughs and discoveries are routine. But rather than a description of each new
research finding, the definition of Astrobiology must be that of a whole, greater than
the sum of its parts. It is a collaborative effort; a new practice that leverages and
transcends traditional scientific discipline boundaries to create an innovation in
interdisciplinary communication.
Astrobiology absorbs the information from chemistry, geology, astronomy, planetary
science, paleontology, oceanography, physics, biology, mathematics and emerges
with a unique perspective. One inaccessible from within each component discipline
alone. One characterized by both diversity and unity in the pursuit of knowledge
about the universe, and our place within it.
ten long-term science goals
origin of life on earth
35
Terrestrial life is the only form of life that we know, and it appears to have arisen
from a common ancestor. How and where did this remarkable event occur? The
question can be approached using historical, observational, and experimental
investigations to understand the origin of life on our planet. We can describe the
conditions of Earth when life began, use phylogenetic information to study our
earliest ancestors, and also assess the possibility that life formed elsewhere and
subsequently migrated to Earth.
organization of matter into life
Determine the general principles governing the organization of matter into living
systems.
To understand the full potential of life in the universe we must establish the general
physical and chemical principles of life. We ask if terrestrial biochemistry and
molecular biology are the only such phenomena that can support life? Having only
one example, we do not know which properties of life are general and necessary, and
which are the result of specific circumstances or historical accident. We seek these
answers by pursuing laboratory experimental approaches and computational
theoretical approaches.
evolution of life
Explore how life evolves on the molecular, organism, and ecosystem levels.
Life is a dynamic process of changes in energy and composition that occurs at all
levels of assemblage, from the individual molecules to ecosystem interactions.
Modern genetic analysis, using novel laboratory and computational methods, allows
new insights into the diversity of life and evolution at all levels. Complementary to
such studies are investigations of the evolution of ecosystems consisting of many
interdependent species, especially microbial communities.
evolution of the ecosystem
Determine how the terrestrial biosphere has co-evolved with the Earth.
Just as life evolves in response to changing environments, changing ecosystems alter
the environment of Earth. Astrobiologists seek to understand the diversity and
distribution of our ancient ancestors by developing technology to read the record of
life as captured in biomolecules and in rocks (fossils), to identify specific chemical
interactions between the living components of the Earth (its biosphere) and other
planetary subsystems, and to trace the history of Earths changing environment in
response to external driving forces and to biological modifications.
physics/biology/chemistry
Establish limits for life in environments that provide analogues for conditions on
other worlds.
Life is found on the Earth anywhere liquid water is present, including such extreme
environments as the interior of nuclear reactors, ice-covered Antarctic lakes,
suboceanic hydrothermal vents, and deep subsurface rocks. To understand the
possible environments for life on other worlds, we must investigate the full range of
habitable environments on our own planet, not only for what they can tell us about the
adaptability of life, but also as analogues for conditions on other bodies in our solar
system, such as Mars or Europa.
habitable worlds
Determine what makes a planet habitable and how common these worlds are in
the universe.
Where should we look for extraterrestrial life? Based on our only example (life on
Earth), liquid water is a requirement. We must therefore determine what sorts of
36
planets are likely to have liquid water and how common they might be. Studying the
process of planet formation and surveying a representative sample of planetary
systems will determine what planets are present and how they are distributed,
essential knowledge for judging the frequency of habitable planets.
signatures of life
Determine whether there is (or once was) life elsewhere in our solar system,
particularly on Mars and Europa.
Exciting data have presented us with the possibility that at least two other worlds in
our solar system have (or have had) liquid water present. On Mars, there is evidence
for stable flowing water early in that planets history. Both in situ investigations and
the analysis of returned samples will be necessary to understand Mars historical
climates and its potential for life. Because their surfaces are inhospitable, exploration
of the subsurface probably offers the only credible opportunity to find extant life on
either Mars or Europa.
ecosystem perturbations
37
Abstract:
We show that homogeneous Gdel spacetimes need not contain closed timelike
curves in low-energy-effective string theories. We find exact solutions for the
including both dilaton and axion fields. The results are valid for bosonic, heterotic and
super-strings. To first order in the inverse string tension angular velocity of the Gdel
universe, $\Omega ,$ and the inverse string tension of the form $\alpha
^{\prime}=1/\Omega ^2$ in the absence of the axion field. The generalization of this
relationship is also found when the axion field is present.
.
In the summer of 1947, there were a number of UFO sightings in the United States.
Sometime during the first week of July 1947, something crashed near Roswell.
W.W. Mac Brazel, a New Mexico rancher, saddled up his horse and rode out with
the son of neighbors Floyd and Loretta Proctor, to check on the sheep after a fierce
thunderstorm the night before. As they rode along, Brazel began to notice unusual
pieces of what seemed to be metal debris, scattered over a large area. Upon further
inspection, Brazel saw that a shallow trench, several hundred feet long, had been
gouged into the land.
Brazel was struck by the unusual properties of the debris, and after dragging a large
piece of it to a shed, he took some of it over to show ,the Proctors. Mrs. Proctor has
recently ( as of June 1997) moved from the ranch into a home nearer to town, but she
remembers Mac showing up with strange material.
The Proctors told Brazel that he might be holding wreckage from a UFO or a
government project, and that he should report the incident to the sheriff. A day or two
later, Mac drove into Roswell where he reported the incident to Sheriff George
Wilcox, who reported it to Intelligence Officer, Major Jesse Marcel of the 509 Bomb
Group, and for days thereafter, the debris site was closed while the wreckage was
cleared.
On July 8, 1947, a press release stating that the wreckage of a crashed disk had been
recovered was issued by the Commander of the 509th Bomb Group at Roswell, Col.
William Blanchard.
Hours later the first press release was rescinded and the second press release stated
that the 509th Bomb Group had mistakenly identified a weather balloon as wreckage
of a flying saucer.
Meanwhile, back in Roswell, Glenn Dennis, a young mortician working at the Ballard
Funeral Home, received some curious calls one afternoon from the morgue at the air
field. It seems the Mortuary Officer needed to get a hold of some small hermetically
sealed coffins,and wanted information about how to preserve bodies that had been
exposed to the elements for a few days, without contaminating the tissue.
Glenn Dennis drove out to the base hospital later that evening where he saw large
pieces of wreckage with strange engravings on one of the pieces sticking out of the
back of a military ambulance. Upon entering the hospital he started to visit with a
38
nurse he knew, when suddenly he was threatened by military police and forced to
leave.
The next day, Glenn Dennis met with the nurse. She told him about the bodies and
drew pictures of them on a prescription pad. Within a few days she was transferred to
England, her whereabouts still unknown.
According to the research of Don Schmitt and Kevin Randle, in their book, A History
of UFO Crashes, from which the following account of the Roswell Incident , in part,
is based, the military had been watching an unidentified flying object on radar for four
days in southern New Mexico. On the night of July 4, 1947, radar indicated that the
object was down around thirty to forty miles northwest of Roswell.
Eye witness William Woody, who lived east of Roswell, remembered being outside
with his father the night of July 4, 1947, when he saw a brilliant object plunge to the
ground. A couple of days later when Woody and his father tried to locate the area of
the crash, they were stopped by military personnel, who had cordoned off the area.
Acting on the call from Sheriff Wilcox, Intelligence Officer, Major Jesse Marcel was
sent by Col. William Blanchard, to investigate Mac Brazels story.
Marcel and Senior Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) agent, Captain Sheridan Cavitt,
followed a rancher off-road to his place. They spent the night there and Marcel
inspected a large piece of debris that Brazel had dragged from the pasture.
Monday morning, July 7, 1947, Major Jesse Marcel took his first step onto the debris
field. Marcel would remark later that something... must have exploded above the
ground and fell. As Brazel, Cavitt and Marcel inspected the field, Marcel was able to
determine which direction it came from, and which direction it was heading. It was
in the pattern... you could tell where it started out and where it ended by how it was
thinned out...
According to Marcel, the debris was strewn over a wide area, I guess maybe threequarters of a mile long and a few hundred feet wide. Scattered in the debris were
small bits of metal that Marcel held a cigarette lighter to, to see if it would burn. I lit
the cigarette lighter to some of this stuff and it didnt burn, he said.
Along with the metal, Marcel described weightless I-beam-like structures that were
3/8 x , none of them very long, that would neither bend nor break. Some of these
I-beams had indecipherable characters along the length, in two colors. Marcel also
described metal debris the thickness of tin foil that was indestructible.
After gathering enough debris to fill his staff car, Maj. Marcel decided to stop by his
home on the way back to the base so that he could show his family the unusual debris.
Hed never seen anything quite like it. I didnt know what we were picking up. I still
dont know what it was...it could not have been part of an aircraft, not part of any kind
of weather balloon or experimental balloon...Ive seen rockets... sent up at the White
Sands Testing Grounds. It definitely was not part of an aircraft or missile or rocket.
Under hypnosis conducted by Dr. John Watkins in May of 1990, Jesse Marcel Jr.
remembered being awakened by his father that night and following him outside to
help carry in a large box filled with debris. Once inside, they emptied the contents of
the debris onto the kitchen floor.
39
Jesse Jr. described the lead foil and I-beams. Under hypnosis, he recalled the writing
on the I-beams as Purple. Strange. Never saw anything like it...Different geometric
shapes, leaves and circles. Under questioning, Jesse Jr. said the symbols were shiny
purple and they were small. There were many separate figures. This too, under
hypnosis: [Marcel Sr. was saying it was a flying saucer] I ask him what a flying
saucer is. I dont know what a flying saucer is...Its a ship. [Dads] excited!
At 11:00 A.M Walter Haut, public relations officer, finished the press release hed
been ordered to write, and gave copies of the release to the two radio stations and both
of the newspapers. By 2:26 P.M., the story was out on the AP Wire:
The Army Air Forces here today announced a flying disk had been
found
As calls began to pour into the base from all over the world, Lt. Robert Shirkey
watched as MPs carried loaded wreckage onto a C-54 from the First Transport Unit.
To get a better look, Shirkey stepped around Col. Blanchard, who was irritated with
all of the calls coming into the base. Blanchard decided to travel out to the debris field
and left instructions that hed gone on leave.
On the morning of July 8, Marcel reported what hed found to Col. Blanchard,
showing him pieces of the wreckage, none of which looked like anything Blanchard
had ever seen. Blanchard then sent Marcel to Carswell [Fort Worth Army Air Field]
to see General Ramey, Commanding Officer of the Eighth Air Force.
Marcel stated years later to Walter Haut that hed taken some of the debris into
Rameys office to show him what had been found. The material was displayed on
Rameys desk for the general when he returned.
Upon his return, General Ramey wanted to see the exact location of the debris field,
so he and Marcel went to the map room down the hall - but when they returned, the
wreckage that had been placed on the desk was gone and a weather balloon was
spread out on the floor. Major Charles A. Cashon took the now-famous photo of
Marcel with the weather balloon, in General Rameys office.
40
41
Introduction to Chaos
The dictionary definition of chaos is turmoil,
turbulence, primordial abyss, and undesired
randomness, but scientists will tell you that chaos is
something extremely sensitive to initial conditions.
Chaos also refers to the question of whether or not it
is possible to make good long-term predictions about
how a system will act. A chaotic system can actually
develop in a way that appears very smooth and
ordered.
Determinism
Early Chaos
Ilya Prigogine showed that complex structures could come from simpler ones. This is
like order coming from chaos. Henry Adams previously described this with his quote
Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit. Henri Poincar was really the
Father of Chaos [Theory], however. The planet Neptune was discovered in 1846
and had been predicted from the observation of deviations in Uranus orbit. King
Oscar II of Norway was willing to give a prize to anyone who could prove or disprove
42
that the solar system was stable. Poincar offered his solution, but when a friend found
an error in his calculations, the prize was taken away until he could come up with a
new solution that worked. He found that there was no solution. Not even Sir Isaac
Newtons laws provided a solution to this huge problem. Poincar had been trying to
find order in a system where there was none to be found.
Edward Lorenz
During the 1960s Edward Lorenz was a
meteorologist at MIT working on a project
to simulate weather patterns on a
computer. He accidentally stumbled upon
the butterfly effect after deviations in
calculations off by thousandths greatly
changed the simulations. The Butterfly
Effect reflects how changes on the small
scale affect things on the large scale. It is
the classic example of chaos, as small
changes lead to large changes. An
example of this is how a butterfly flapping
its wings in Hong Kong could change
tornado patterns in Texas. Lorenz also
discovered the Lorenz Attractor, an area
that pulls points towards itself. He did so
during a 3D weather simulation.
Chaos Theory
Chaos theory describes complex motion and the dynamics of sensitive systems.
Chaotic systems are mathematically deterministic but nearly impossible to predict.
Chaos is more evident in long-term systems than in short-term systems. Behavior in
chaotic systems is aperiodic, meaning that no variable describing the state of the
system undergoes a regular repetition of values. A chaotic system can actually evolve
in a way that appears to be smooth and ordered, however. Chaos refers to the issue of
whether or not it is possible to make accurate long-term predictions of any system if
the initial conditions are known to an accurate degree.
43
Chaotic systems, in this case a fractal, can appear to be smooth and ordered.
Initial Conditions
Chaos occurs when a system is very sensitive to initial conditions. Initial conditions
are the values of measurements at a given starting time. The phenomenon of chaotic
motion was considered a mathematical oddity at the time of its discovery, but now
physicists know that it is very widespread and may even be the norm in the universe.
The weather is an example of a chaotic system. In order to make long-term weather
forecasts it would be necessary to take an infinite number of measurements, which
would be impossible to do. Also, because the atmosphere is chaotic, tiny uncertainties
would eventually overwhelm any calculations and defeat the accuracy of the forecast.
The presence of chaotic systems in nature seems to place a limit on our ability to
apply deterministic physical laws to predict motions with any degree of certainty.
44
Instability
The definition of instability is a special
kind of behavior in time found in certain
physical systems. It is impossible to
measure to infinite precision, but until the
time of Poincar, the assumption was that
if you could shrink the uncertainty in the
initial conditions then any imprecision in
the prediction would shrink in the same
way. In reality, a tiny imprecision in the
initial conditions will grow at an enormous
rate. Two nearly indistinguishable sets of
initial conditions for the same system will
Chaotic systems are instable result in two final situations that differ
greatly from each other. This extreme
sensitivity to initial conditions is called
chaos. Equilibrium is very rare, and the
more complex a system is, there are more
disturbances that can threaten stability,
but conditions must be right to have an
upheaval.
45
Populations are chaotic, constantly fluctuating, and their graphs can turn out to
resemble fractals.
Complexity
Complexity can occur in natural and man-made systems, as well as in social structures
and human beings. Complex dynamical systems may be very large or very small, and
in some complex systems, large and small components live cooperatively. A complex
system is neither completely deterministic nor completely random and it exhibits both
characteristics. The causes and effects of the events that a complex system
experiences are not proportional to each other. The different parts of complex systems
are linked and affect one another in a synergistic manner. There is positive and
negative feedback in a complex system. The level of complexity depends on the
character of the system, its environment, and the nature of the interactions between
them. Complexity can also be called the edge of chaos. When a complex dynamical
chaotic system because unstable, an attractor (such as those ones the Lorenz invented)
draws the stress and the system splits. This is called bifurication. The edge of chaos is
the stage when the system could carry out the most complex computations. In daily
life we see complexity in traffic flow, weather changes, population changes,
organizational behavior, shifts in public opinion, urban development, and epidemics.
Fractals
Fractals are geometric shapes that are very
complex and infinitely detailed. You can zoom
in on a section and it will have just as much
detail as the whole fractal. They are
recursively defined and small sections of
them are similar to large ones. One way to
think of fractals for a function f(x) is to
consider x, f(x), f(f(x)), f(f(f(x))),
f(f(f(f(x)))), etc. Fractals are related to chaos
because they are complex systems that have
definite properties.
Fractals are recursively
defined and infinitely
46
detailed
Benoit Mandelbrot
Benoit Mandelbrot
Sierpinskis Triangle
Sierpinskis Triangle is a great example of a fractal, and one of the simplest ones. It is
recursively defined and thus has infinite detail. It starts as a triangle and every new
iteration of it creates a triangle with the midpoints of the other triangles of it.
Sierpinskis Triangle has an infinite number of triangles in it.
47
Koch Snowflake
The Koch Snowflake is another good example of a fractal. It starts as a triangle and
adds on triangles to its trisection points that point outward for all infinity. This causes
it to look like a snowflake after a few iterations.
48
Mandelbrot Set
The Mandelbrot fractal set is the simplest nonlinear function, as it is defined
recursively as f(x)=x^2+c. After plugging f(x) into x several times, the set is equal to
all of the expressions that are generated. The plots below are a time series of the set,
meaning that they are the plots for a specific c. They help to demonstrate the theory of
chaos, as when c is -1.1, -1.3, and -1.38 it can be expressed as a normal, mathematical
function, whereas for c = -1.9 you cant. In other words, when c is -1.1, -1.3, and 1.38 the function is deterministic, whereas when c = -1.9 the function is chaotic.
Complex Fractals
When changing the values for the Mandelbrot fractal set from lines to geometric
shapes that depend on the various values, a much more complicated picture arises.
You can also change the type of system that you use when graphing the fractals and
the types of sets that you use in order to generate increasingly complex fractals. The
following fractals are very mathematically complex:
49
50
became burdened with in the 19th Century; hence, a new science and mathematics was
derived: chaos theory.
The very name chaos theory seems to contradict reason, in fact it seems somewhat
of an oxymoron. The name chaos theory leads the reader to believe that
mathematicians have discovered some new and definitive knowledge about utterly
random and incomprehensible phenomena; however, this is not entirely the case. The
acceptable definition of chaos theory states, chaos theory is the qualitative study of
unstable aperiodic behavior in deterministic nonlinear dynamical systems. A
dynamical system may be defined to be a simplified model for the time-varying
behavior of an actual system, and aperiodic behavior is simply the behavior that
occurs when no variable describing the state of the system undergoes a regular
repetition of values. Aperiodic behavior never repeats and it continues to manifest the
effects of any small perturbation; hence, any prediction of a future state in a given
system that is aperiodic is impossible. Assessing the idea of aperiodic behavior to a
relevant example, one may look at human history. History is indeed aperiodic since
broad patterns in the rise and fall of civilizations may be sketched; however, no events
ever repeat exactly. What is so incredible about chaos theory is that unstable aperiodic
behavior can be found in mathematically simply systems. These very simple
mathematical systems display behavior so complex and unpredictable that it is
acceptable to merit their descriptions as random.
An interesting question arises from many skeptics concerning why chaos has just
recently been noticed. If chaotic systems are so mandatory to our every day life, how
come mathematicians have not studied chaos theory earlier? The answer can be given
in one word: computers. The calculations involved in studying chaos are repetitive,
boring and number in the millions. No human is stupid enough to endure the
boredom; however, a computer is always up to the challenge. Computers have always
been known for their excellence at mindless repetition; hence, the computer is our
telescope when studying chaos. For, without a doubt, one cannot really explore chaos
without a computer.
Before advancing into the more precocious and advanced areas of chaos, it is
necessary to touch on the basic principle that adequately describes chaos theory, the
Butterfly Effect. The Butterfly Effect was vaguely understood centuries ago and is
still satisfactorily portrayed in folklore:
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of a horse, the rider was lost;
For want of a rider, the battle was lost;
For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost!
Small variations in initial conditions result in huge, dynamic transformations in
concluding events. That is to say that there was no nail, and, therefore, the kingdom
was lost. The graphs of what seem to be identical, dynamic systems appear to diverge
as time goes on until all resemblance disappears.
Perhaps the most identifiable symbol linked with the Butterfly Effect is the famed
Lorenz Attractor. Edward Lorenz, a curious meteorologist, was looking for a way to
52
model the action of the chaotic behavior of a gaseous system. Hence, he took a few
equations from the physics field of fluid dynamics, simplified them, and got the
following three-dimensional system:
dx/dt=delta*(y-x)
dy/dt=r*x-y-x*z
dz/dt=x*y-b*z
Delta represents the Prandtl number, the ratio of the fluid viscosity of a substance to
its thermal conductivity; however, one does not have to know the exact value of this
constant; hence, Lorenz simply used 10. The variable r represents the difference in
temperature between the top and bottom of the gaseous system. The variable b is
the width to height ratio of the box which is being used to hold the gas in the gaseous
system. Lorenz used 8/3 for this variable. The resultant x of the equation represents
the rate of rotation of the cylinder, y represents the difference in temperature at
opposite sides of the cylinder, and the variable z represents the deviation of the
system from a linear, vertical graphed line representing temperature. If one were to
plot the three differential equations on a three-dimensional plane, using the help of a
computer of course, no geometric structure or even complex curve would appear;
instead, a weaving object known as the Lorenz Attractor appears. Because the system
never exactly repeats itself, the trajectory never intersects itself. Instead it loops
around forever. I have included a computer animated Lorenz Attractor which is quite
similar to the production of Lorenz himself. The following Lorenz Attractor was
generated by running data through a 4th-order Runge-Kutta fixed-timestep integrator
with a step of .0001, printing every 100th data point. It ran for 100 seconds, and only
took the last 4096 points. The original parameters were a =16, r =45, and b = 4 for the
following equations (similar to the original Lorenz equations):
x=a(y-x)
y=rx-y-xz
z=xy-bz
The initial position of the projectory was (8,8,14). When the points were generated
and graphed, the Lorenz Attractor was produced in 3-D:
53
The attractor will continue weaving back and forth between the two wings, its motion
seemingly random, its very action mirroring the chaos which drives the process.
Lorenz had obviously made an immense breakthrough in not only chaos theory, but
life. Lorenz had proved that complex, dynamical systems show order, but they never
repeat. Since our world is classified as a dynamical, complex system, our lives, our
weather, and our experiences will never repeat; however, they should form patterns.
Lorenz, not quite convinced with his results, did a follow-up experiment in order to
support his previous conclusions. Lorenz established an experiment that was quite
simple; it is known today as the Lorenzian Waterwheel. Lorenz took a waterwheel; it
had about eight buckets spaced evenly around its rim with a small hole at the bottom
of each . The buckets were mounted on swivels, similar to Ferris-wheel seats, so that
the buckets would always point upwards. The entire system was placed under a
waterspout. A slow, constant stream of water was propelled from the waterspout;
hence, the waterwheel began to spin at a fairly constant rate. Lorenz decided to
increase the flow of water, and, as predicted in his Lorenz Attractor, an interesting
phenomena arose. The increased velocity of the water resulted in a chaotic motion for
the waterwheel. The waterwheel would revolve in one direction as before, but then it
would suddenly jerk about and revolve in the opposite direction. The filling and
emptying of the buckets was no longer synchronized; the system was now chaotic.
Lorenz observed his mysterious waterwheel for hours, and, no matter how long he
recorded the positions and contents of the buckets, there was never and instance
54
where the waterwheel was in the same position twice. The waterwheel would
continue on in chaotic behavior without ever repeating any of its previous conditions.
A graph of the waterwheel would resemble the Lorenz Attractor.
Now it may be accepted from Lorenz and his comrades that our world is indeed
linked with an eery form of chaos. Chaos and randomness are no longer ideas of a
hypothetical world; they are quite realistic here in the status quo. A basis for chaos is
established in the Butterfly Effect, the Lorenz Attractor, and the Lorenz Waterwheel;
therefore, there must be an immense world of chaos beyond the rudimentary
fundamentals. This new form mentioned is highly complex, repetitive, and replete
with intrigue.
I coined fractal from the Latin adjective fractus. The corresponding Latin verb
frangere means to break: to create irregular fragments. It is therefore
sensible-and how appropriate for our needs!-that, in addition to fragmented,
fractus should also mean irregular, both meanings being preserved in
fragment. -Benoit Mandelbrot
The extending and folding of chaotic systems give strange attractors, such as the
Lorenz Attractor, the distinguishing characteristic of a nonintegral dimension. This
nonintegral dimension is most commonly referred to as a fractal dimension. Fractals
appear to be more popular in the status quo for their aesthetic nature than they are for
their mathematics. Everyone who has seen a fractal has admired the beauty of a
colorful, fascinating image, but what is the formula that makes up this glitzy image?
The classical Euclidean geometry that one learns in school is quite different than the
fractal geometry mainly because fractal geometry concerns nonlinear, nonintegral
systems while Euclidean geometry is mainly oriented around linear, integral systems.
Hence, Euclidean geometry is a description of lines, ellipses, circles, etc. However,
fractal geometry is a description of algorithms. There are two basic properties that
constitute a fractal. First, is self-similarity, which is to say that most magnified images
of fractals are essentially indistinguishable from the unmagnified version. A fractal
shape will look almost, or even exactly, the same no matter what size it is viewed at.
This repetitive pattern gives fractals their aesthetic nature. Second, as mentioned
earlier, fractals have non-integer dimensions. This means that they are entirely
different from the graphs of lines and conic sections that we have learned about in
fundamental Euclidean geometry classes. By taking the midpoints of each side of an
equilateral triangle and connecting them together, one gets an interesting fractal
known as the Sierpenski Triangle. The iterations are repeated an infinite number or
times and eventually a very simple fractal arises:
55
In addition to the famous Sierpenski Triangle, the Koch Snowflake is also a well
noted, simple fractal image. To construct a Koch Snowflake, begin with a triangle
with sides of length 1. At the middle of each side, add a new triangle one-third the
size; and repeat this process for an infinite amount of iterations. The length of the
boundary is 3 X 4/3 X 4/3 X 4/3...-infinity. However, the area remains less than the
area of a circle drawn around the original triangle. What this means is that an
infinitely long line surrounds a finite area. The end construction of a Koch Snowflake
resembles the coastline of a shore.
The two fundamental fractals that I have included provided a basis for much more
complex, elaborate fractals. Two of the leading reasearchers in the field of fractals
were Gaston Maurice Julia and Benoit Mandelbrot. Their discoveries and
breakthroughs will be discussed next.
On February 3rd, 1893, Gaston Maurice Julia was born in Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria.
Julia was injured while fighting in World War I and was forced to wear a leather strap
across his face for the rest of his life in order to protect and cover his injury. he spent
a large majority of his life in hospitals; therefore, a lot of his mathematical research
took place in the hospital. At the age of 25, Julia published a 199 page masterpiece
entitled Memoire sur literation des fonctions. The paper dealt with the iteration of a
rational function. With the publication of this paper came his claim to fame. Julia
spent his life studying the iteration of polynomials and rational functions. If f(x) is a
function, various behaviors arise when f is iterated or repeated. If one were to start
with a particular value for x, say x=a, then the following would result:
a, f(a), f(f(a)), f(f(f(a))), etc.
Repeatedly applying f to a yields arbitrarily large values. Hence, the set of
numbers is partitioned into two parts, and the Julia set associated to f is the
boundary between the two sets. The filled Julia set includes those numbers x=a for
which the iterates of f applied to a remain bounded. The following fractals belong
to the Julia set.
56
Julia became famous around the 1920s; however, upon his demise, he was essentially
forgotten. It was not until 1970 that the work of Gaston Maurice Julia was revived and
popularized by Polish born Benoit Mandelbrot.
Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and
bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line. -Benoit
Mandelbrot
Benoit Mandelbrot was born in Poland in 1924. When he was 12 his family emigrated
to France and his uncle, Szolem Mandelbrot, took responsibility for his education. It
is said that Mandelbrot was not very successful in his schooling; in fact, he may have
never learned his multiplication tables. When Benoit was 21, his uncle showed him
Julias important 1918 paper concerning fractals. Benoit was not overly impressed
with Julias work, and it was not until 1977 that Benoit became interested in Julias
discoveries. Eventually, with the aid of computer graphics, Mandelbrot was able to
show how Julias work was a source of some of the most beautiful fractals known
today. The Mandelbrot set is made up of connected points in the complex plane. The
simple equation that is the basis of the Mandelbrot set is included below.
changing number + fixed number = Result
In order to calculate points for a Mandelbrot fractal, start with one of the numbers on
the complex plane and put its value in the Fixed Number slot of the equation. In the
Changing number slot, start with zero. Next, calculate the equation. Take the
number obtained as the result and plug it into the Changing number slot. Now,
repeat (iterate) this operation an infinite number or times. When iterative equations
are applied to points in a certain region of the complex plane, a fractal from the
Mandelbrot set results. A few fractals from the Mandelbrot set are included below.
57
The Cantor set is simply the dust of points that remain. The number of these points
are infinite, but their total length is zero. Mandelbrot saw the Cantor set as a model for
the occurerence of errors in an electronic transmission line. Engineers saw periods of
errorless transmission, mixed with periods when errors would come in gusts. When
these gusts of errors were analyzed, it was determined that they contained error-free
periods within them. As the transmissions were analyzed to smaller and smaller
degrees, it was determined that such dusts, as in the Cantor Dust, were indispensable
in modeling intermittency.
Its an experience like no other experience I can describe, the best thing that
can happen to a scientist, realizing that something thats happened in his or her
mind exactly corresponds to something that happens in nature. Its startling
every time it occurs. One is surprised that a construct of ones own mind can
58
59
their equations never actually predicted the real planets movement. It is easy to
understand how two bodies will revolve around a common center of gravity.
However, what happens when a third, fourth, fifth or infinite number of gravitational
attractions are introduced? The vectors become infinite and the system becomes
chaotic. This prevents a definitive analytical solution to the equations of motion. Even
with the advanced computers that we have today, the long term calculations are far
too lengthy. Stephen Hawking once said, If we find the answer to that (the universe),
it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind
of God.
The applications of chaos theory are infinite; seemingly random systems produce
patterns of spooky understandable irregularity. From the Mandelbrot set to turbulence
to feedback and strange attractors; chaos appears to be everywhere. Breakthroughs
have been made in the past in the area chaos theory, and, in order to achieve any more
colossal accomplishments in the future, they must continue to be made.
Understanding chaos is understanding life as we know it.
However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be
understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we
shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in
the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.
-Stephen Hawking
information abound on the Internet, especially for those who want to know more
about fractals. But there is so much more than fractals to share with your students. I
have included some of those sites I found most informative, but some are very
technical. These may augment your knowledge without necessitating a course in
Chaos at the local university.
This site has been designed to offer educators a course in Chaos Theory and Fractal
Geometry. The course encompasses the following topics:
This course offers text, relevant web sites, interactive Internet activities to reinforce
concepts, and proposals for research topics and presentation modes for students. It is
hoped that student projects may be presented for future students to use as models. The
course is designed for high school students with a knowledge of Algebra. However,
there are links to a number of sites that may be used for younger students.
Teacher Support:
60
Online Text
discrete math
measurement
patterns and functions
logic and language
Goals:
to familiarize students and teachers with the following concepts and
skills:
61
Attracting point
Siegel disk
Attracting 3-cycle
62
Herman Ring
Look ma! A Herman Ring!
Rubies
63
A
gorg
eous
Julia
set.
Herman Mandelbrot
A slice of the Mandelbrot set.
Herman Mandelbrot 2
An orthogonal slice of the Mandelbrot set.
Notice how both Mandelbrot views show thin black lines with buds in mirror image
pairs on either side? I was soon to discover that this was characteristic of regions of an
M-set where Herman rings occur.
64
I was playing around with formulas recently when I decided to try a certain quartic
mapping with two parameters. I am still astonished daily by the sheer variety of the
fractals it produces. The equation is zn+1=b(3zn4-4zn3-6zn2+12zn)+c where b and c are
complex parameters and z is a complex number. The seeming simplicity of this
equation is belied by the complex fractal Julia sets that depend on the values of a and
b chosen, and the two four-dimensional Mandelbrot sets. One of the Mandelbrot sets
has minibrots like z2+c, the other has minibrots like z3+c.
The images in the six pages below are various Julia sets and zooms of slices of the
two Mandelbrot sets. The variety of these images is astonishing. In no other fractal
have I discovered mushrooms for instance...
Sprennet
These peculiar plants grow only on the underside of an
overhanging cliff in a certain forest of Quartz World.
Symbol
This is the symbol of the Spiral Clan.
65
Ho
t
Spi
rals
FreakyPhant
These mutant elephants carry two kinds of spiral.
66
Types of Fractals
There are two main types of fractals, regular fractals like the Koch snowflake and
random fractals. Regular fractals, sometimes given the name geometric fractals are
the same on all scales, apart, of course, from size. Random fractals on the other hand
differ slightly between levels. However, all levels are mathematically related. This, of
course, being the reason they are still considered fractals.
67
of the side on which it is being placed. Then continue the process on each side of the
resulting star, each time adding a triangle with a base of one third the length of the
side it is placed on. The resulting figure is a Koch Snowflake an example of a regular
fractal.
Types of Fractals
There are two main types of fractals, regular fractals like the Koch snowflake and
random fractals. Regular fractals, sometimes given the name geometric fractals are
the same on all scales, apart, of course, from size. Random fractals on the other hand
differ slightly between levels. However, all levels are mathematically related. This, of
course, being the reason they are still considered fractals.
-
DNA .
Ken Hirano
68
DNA
, ,
. ,
DNA ,
( Hirano 2002 Appl. Phys. Lett. 80 515).
(
) DNA.
, .
Hirano
, , ,
DNA, 40 m .
DNA, 600 milliwatt
.
-
200 nanometres - ,
. DNA,
. DNA
.
,
. Hirano
, (assembly)
(micromachines).
DNA , Hirano,
.
80 Friedman-Lemaitre
, 2002
18 ,
. O Alexandr Friedmann,
,
.
Alexandr Friedmann , ,
1888 1928. ,
1922
(...).
.
Friedmann .., ,
. Friedman, .
.
.
Friedmann . Friedmann
. , . ,
. ,
- - .
69
-
, .
Friedmann, ,
. ( )
.
, . - , .
( ),
.
Friedmann,
. , vr Friedmann ,
Einstein
.
.
Friedmann 1925 ( ).
, Friedmann, ,
.
, 1927, , , , George Lemaitre,
Einstein Friedmann ( ),
.
Lemaitre, 1894,
. Lemaitre
, , .
- ,
Lemaitre , 1931.
Friedman Lemaitre 1920,
.
, Lemaitre Friedman,
Einstein, 1930,
.
.
-
, .
Lemaitre
, 30
, .
, , , .
.
Hubble, 1929, Gamov 1927,
.
. .
,
. . ,
70
Einstein-Sitter.
(Big Bang), Friedman
Lemaitre. Einstein-De Sitter , Gamov
,
.
1966
Friedman-Lemaitre.
: (Steven Weinberg), (John Gribbin).
Big Bang;
Big Bang
. Big Bang
,
, .
:
Olbers.
Hubble
, Hubble (1929)
.
-
.
-
1 100.000.
supernova.
Big Bang (
Sitter, Friedmann, Gamov, Lemaitre)
( Bondi, Gold, Hoyle),
Big Bang .
- quasar .
(CMB),
2,7 .
, .
TCMB .
.
2D, 3He -3, 4He -4, 7Li -7
. 3 .
, CMB
,
Big Bang
.
*
.
.
Olbers
( ),
( )
( ).
71
- Big Bang;
, 2002
, ,
. , ,
.
Big Bang, 50
, .
, ,
, ,
, , ,
( ).
, branes ,
, .
( ).
, quarks, , ,
, . ,
.
,
-
.
, 2001,
- .
Neil Turok , Burt Ovrut , Paul
Steinhardt Justin Khoury Princeton.
. ,
, ,
.
, 11-, 5
. 6
11 ,
, .
1 4, , 5 .
, 5 , 5
, . ,
.
4- ,
;
, . 5, , , , Big Bang.
72
, branes, 5 , ,
, .
, .
, Big Bang,
, Big Bang.
:
. ,
,
,
, .
Big Bang,
.
Mario Livio,
, , ,
. .
,
( ).
, .
,
, .
. , ,
. , , , ,
brane () , , .
,
, .
, : ,
;
, ;
,
. .
, Burt Ovrut, . .
(brane), , .
, ,
, .
, Ovrut, , ,
(branes). .
,
() . brane
. branes, , ,
.
, ,
73
, Ovrut.
1.
5
.
3.
5
.
2.
,
5 .
4.
,
. ,
Big Bang.
.
, , .
,
, ,
( ),
.
, ,
20 .
, .
, , .
, ,
.
(branes),
, Big Bang.
( ),
.
Turner, ,
.
.
.
Bing Bang , ,
, 15
.
74
, ,
- ,
,
,
.
Big Bang,
, .
Big Bang, - ,
11 ,
.
, 80 Alan Guth ( MIT),
Andre Linde ( ), Andreas Albrecht (UC ) Steinhardt,
,
, .
, .
.
. (
) ( ),
. , :
.
(CMB).
, ,
quarks, , , ..
. ,
().
.
, Big Bang
. toy Einstein,
. ,
,
.
:
, ,
, . ,
,
.
( ).
, ,
.
Oskar Klein () 1920
.
George Uhlenbeck ( ) and
Samuel Goudsmit 1926 Leiden,
.
75
, .
. ,
10 11 . 90, Petr Horava ( Rutgers) Ed Witten ( Princeton)
, ,
. ,
Calabi-Yau.
,
( )
. ,
-, Andre Lukas ( ),Ovrut Dan Waldram (
Mary Westfield ). Horava-Witten -,
.
.
.
. ,
- ,
.
branes, .
Big Bang ,
brane .
, ,
. 15 ,
.
. ,
quarks, , , ,
. ,
.
,
-
. ,
,
.
,
.
, 15
, ,
Big Bang.
, ,
,
.
, Big Bang ,
, ,
Mario Livio ,
.
76
,
,
Livio. Mario Livio
, .
, , Alan H.
Guth ,
.
. Bang
, Bang
Big Bang.
,
. , Big Bang
, .
, , ,
, Paul J. Steinhardt
Princeton.
1020 . ,
bang
.
, ,
, .
Big Bang.
,
. ,
.
, Burt . Ovrut
.
.
, .
Steinhardt Ovrut, Justin Khoury Princeton Neil
Turok DAMTP ,
(ekpyrotic) , .
;
;
, ,
Big Bang
.
Big Bang
20. ,
77
.
,
. ,
, , ,
Steinhardt. , Big Bang
.
,
, ,
.
1980, Guth Big Bang
.
2 , Guth
,
.
10 -32 ,
100 ,
. :
-
-
.
,
.
.
. ,
. ,
.
Big Bang
,
,
.
-
.
,
, . , Steinhardt,
.
, .
78
, Steinhardt,
,
. , ,
,
.
Oskar Klein () 1920
.
George Uhlenbeck ( ) and
Samuel Goudsmit 1926
Leiden, .
, ,
quarks,
,
.
,
,
.
Ovrut. 11
-7 3
1 .
,
, brane,
. 3-
( ) .
,
()
10-19
m. brane ,
.
, ,
:
. , branes.
branes
. Steinhardt ,
branes
.
11 ,
branes 5 .
, 6 .
branes
79
,
.
,
. -
branes- .
branes
. ,
,
branes .
,
brane.
branes ,
brane .
, brane
brane
.
Big Bang.
Ovrut.
, Steinhardt,
,
. ,
.
, 26
(http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0108187),
Steinhardt, Nathan Seiberg Princeton,
.
,
brane
.
, branes
, , brane
. brane
. branes , ,
.
, Big
Bang. , branes
,
.
. ,
branes
. ,
.
,
.
80
, -
brane-
.
.
, branes
, brane
.
brane , Big
Bang. .
brane ,
.
David N. Spergel Princeton.
.
;
Steinhardt, Big
Bang .
20 ,
Steinhardt.
, Guth.
,
.
,
Guth.
-
.
,
Andrei Linde Stanford,
.
, Steinhardt
, branes.
, Linde branes
. ,
, . Steinhardt
.
,
Ovrut. branes
, ,
, .
81
, Ovrut,
,
. , ,
,
quarks
.
branes,
,
, Ovrut.
. ,
. Big
Bang
,
.
.
, Ovrut.
.
Ovrut.
.
. ,
- .
extra - .
Fermi,
:
;
(GUT)
.
,
, Planck,
. Planck
-33
10 cm
82
,
.
,
.
:
(mm)!
30 . 1mm
-33
Planck 10 cm.
.
, ,
.
,
. Nima ArkaniHamed ( / U.C.Berkeley), (Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) Gia Dvali (NYU)
,
.
1mm
.
20
.
-33
10 cm, .
, 1mm.
.
.
, .
.
.
,
;
1.000.000 top quark;
;
,
;
,
.
,
.
.
,
. ,
Lisa Randal (MIT) Raman Sundrum (Stanford),
.
83
.
(LHC) CERN
,
LHC
.
LHC.
,
,
.
,
1mm.
,
1mm.
Big Bang
NEWGEN 2000.
H M
. O
B
M M. M X
...
B . H
M
. X
X. . T
, - -
CERN (E E Y
E)
K.
O B M M
90,
M ,
T. ,
Y (Superstring Theory).
M
,
K . T
, ,
. E M M,
. H ...
.
, , Y
84
. ,
, ()
,
!
,
- . O B
M M
, !
: O
...
-43
(10
...
0,000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000001 M M)
.
A
. K
K (,
, ) . T
20 ,
( )
( , , ).
.
M
M, B ,
.
,
!
M M .
, , :
,
! A
M A T ,
K, .
M , B
:
, 1
, (
-31
10
). A ,
.
,
93
( 10 -
,
). A
( )
.
T M M
.
, ,
- M
M,
... . H
,
B .
85
O
, I
M M
M
;
O
B
-,
. O
A
.
A
. A M
, M
(Big Crunch).
. A ,
. M M
(t= - ) (t=0)
M M, B. H
,
.
A
, .
M M :
,
, ,
. T
M ,
, B
- : E M M
,
. ,
.
O K,
M M M
. ...
:
M M
. ,
.
M M , ,
1.093 .
T
, . M
86
. T , ,
, . O
! K
, ,
, CERN.
B
, , . (A
). O B
A M ( Caltech,
K) T N (I E
M IHES, )
(asymptotic past triviality). O
,
.
. A
, B.
( ). T
(.. trivial
) .
K ( ...
) ...
. O ,
, .
.
O B
, -M
M . T
, B. ,
.
(, , )
. ,
,
. E
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
-
;
;
Kaluza-Klein
87
-
:
.
.
1960, Gabrielle Veneziano
, .
1970 John Schwarz Joel
Scherk o
.
;
(
) .
.
, ,
, Big Bang .
.
(
), .
, spin
(, ).
.
,
spin=2.
,
spin=2.
.
.
, .
.
,
. , ,
,
.
88
() ,
().
.
,
. ,
, .
.
.,
.
;
.
,
10-13
cm.
.
-
-
. :
( )
. :
89
, 10-33 cm.
Plank.
,
.
.
, . , (,
, quark) ,
. ,
.
.
, Plank 10-33 cm,
. ,
,
,
.
(10-33 cm),
. ,
.
:
,
.
,
spin=2 .
90
.
. .
Feynman
,
Planck 10-33 cm.
:
.
,
(
) ( ).
,
91
.
.
;
Plank, ,
.
, :
;
,
.
( ,
).
.
.
Plank.
.
. (
)
,
.
. (compactification).
,
.
.
!
92