WMAP and CMB

Stumbling onto NASA is such a time-suck. The latest foray was the image above, that piqued my curiosity, and I came upon the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), a satellite based mission that for the first time helped detect and map Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation in great detail. The probe helped establish not only the the census of atoms in the universe, but also helped reconstruct events leading up to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Information gleaned from this program helped build the picture above, which is a timeline of our universe's expansion.

The WMAP probe turned out to be a handy little busybody. Launched in 2001, the satellite was supposed to travel to an orbit beyond Earth called L2 in about three months and spend another 2 years collecting data. But the probe continued to send data through August 19, 2010. And the data turned out to be a gold mine.

Findings from the WMAP mission are impressive. Many recent changes about our understanding of the Universe and its origins seem to be linked to data from this probe. Among those I found the most fascinating, was this pie-chart that classified stuff in the Universe. Turns out only 4% is everything that we see - stars, planets, nebulae and dark holes. An overwhelming chunk is stuff that is causing more than expected attractive force in the Universe (dark matter) and way more than expected repelling force (dark energy). While I had read this before, spending time with the WMAP site, helped put a lot of it in perspective.

And yeah, I learned about Lagrange points, with pictures.

All pictures courtesy NASA/WMAP Science Team.

Anthropomorphic realities

There is nothing like string theory and coffee to wake you up on a Sunday morning. I have been wanting to post this for a while, but never quite got the right angle to talk about. Until this morning, when I read this.

The article is a classic compilation of the anthropomorphic arguments for the structure of the universe. Notwithstanding the scary look of the word, the argument basically is that our world is the way it is, because we are in it. In other words, we are not living in a unique world, the world is unique because we evolved at the end of it.

The article from io9 essentially tackles the idea that any combination other than the 3+1 dimensions (three space dimensions and one time dimension) would be illogical. Having only two space dimensions would, for example, would result in the alimentary canal splitting your body into two. Having four dimensions would cause the laws of physics to produce an unstable world with electrons collapsing into the nucleus and the planets into stars. Similarly having a two-dimensions time would make it absolutely painful to meet anyone - even being in the same place you could be in completely different times and never manage to keep a date.

Anthropomorphic arguments are inherently persuasive, but dangerous. They tend to limit choices and directly impact analytical rigor. For the most part, I tend to stay away from them, unless it came to the interpretation of mathematical constructs. And in that, these argument present a layer of abstraction that has the power to raise fundamental psychological questions about ourselves and our universe.

Consider the perception of time for example. Persistence of vision dictates that the image we see persists for about 1/25^th of a second. In a world without high-speed cameras, this would mean that all phenomena that occurred quicker than this limit would essentially be invisible to us. If you asked the question - why is the limit for persistence of vision that number, you are thinking about it incorrectly. Instead the anthropomorphic answer is more logical. We developed in a world where anything quicker than the persistence of vision would essentially be inconsequential to us, and therefore "invisible".

How better to close a discussion around physics and dimensions than to embed a TED talk on the subject by Brian Greene. After the break.

You Sir, are under Siege

Stumbled upon this simple flash based game over at Armor Games. Sporting a nice physics engine, and a simple game play, this was a good way to waste an hour of one's time.

Sieger is a siege game where the aim is to use projectiles to knock down a castle and kill all the defenders. Sometimes there are hostages that need to be saved, and treasure that needs to be looted. The fewer the shots the better.

I am guessing this is the first of a series of time-wasting activities today. Now if only I can get to the "Brilliant Victory" medal in all of the sieges.

Update: With a bit of perseverance and cheating on 2 sieges later, we have complete brilliance in victory.

 

Update 2: Apparently I caught the bug for crushing castles. Found another game called Crush the Castle 2 on the same site. This one is a tad tougher and involves the use of a weighted slingshot.

But fear not - determination prevailed. In the battle of man vs. Crustania, man won. And all is well with the world.