Some of what I’ve been working on for my Master’s thesis. There’s still a ways to go on this exhibit, so no pictures of it in action (yet!), but here’s some samples from the preliminary design package that’s going to be presented at my thesis defense, and to the client.
After June, I’ll have more time to work on science art, and I’ve got some exciting stuff in the works, so stay tuned!
During NASA’s Black Hole Week I saw a lot of social media posts, press releases, videos etc. that were not really correct.
One big issue with science communication about black holes is that while it has gotten good at dispelling the trivial myths (like “black holes suck everything into them and so you should be afraid Sgr A* will kill us all”) it has perpetuated other myths that require more detailed knowledge of general relativity and astronomy to debunk.
I thought it would be interesting to go over some of these misconceptions…
Seems like a good idea to reblog this post in case some astronomy social media managers say stuff freezes when it falls into a black hole again.
As far as the actual content of the original post, some things I would like to add:
A new misconception:
Myth: Hawking radiation comes from the event horizon of the black hole.
Reality: Hawking radiation comes from all the space-time around the black hole.
Hawking radiation is a very weak radiation all black holes are predicted to emit, and shrink down to nothing in the process. It is too weak and slow for us to detect for black holes of astrophysical size (i.e. those with the mass of stars) but if really tiny black holes exist, they could evaporate due to the radiation on timescales short enough for us to observe.
A common description of Hawking radiation in popularizations is that of matter and antimatter pairs of particles forming at the event horizon of the black hole, and one particle being sucked into the black hole and the other flying off into space as radiation. From this, one would expect the radiation to come from the event horizon, or very slightly above it.
In fact, Hawking radiation comes from a large region around the black hole, and it has the same wavelength as the size of the black hole itself. It’s like the black hole is surrounded in a diffuse bath of radiation that cannot be localized to it. This is because the particle pair description of Hawking radiation, while intuitive…is not how it actually is modeled or calculated in physics.
The actual process is too complicated for me to do calculations with (I’m a lowly astronomy & astrophysics PhD student, not a string theorist) but in general, space-time is filled with things called quantum fields. These are essentially more complex versions of stuff like the magnetic and electric fields (”classical fields”) that are more familiar. Their oscillations can appear to us as particles. When a black hole is present, it alters the possible ways the quantum fields can oscillate, like the presence of a hole in a drumskin changes the sounds the drumskin makes when you beat it. We see the new modes of oscillation as new particles.
…this is of course just an analogy, but it at least gives some idea of the physics involved.
Other notes:
-The field is leaning more and more to the idea that AGN feedback plays a major role in the quenching of star formation, at least for large spiral galaxies and the giant elliptical galaxies. That is, some form of “black holes kill galaxies” is looking more plausible as the years go by. Some form of AGN feedback appears to be necessary to get models of galaxy formation to work.
-Supermassive black holes may show jets up to higher luminosities (and so likely higher accretion rates) for their size than stellar black holes do. So the idea that quasars without visible jets lack them entirely is definitely not something that is proven at this time.
-Literally anything that has to do with what you would actually observe when you fall into a realistic astrophysical black hole that is rotating and accreting is full of disagreements between scientists. Other than that “you would die.” Remember that. “You would die.”
The final comic I had planned for that planetarium show. It’s mostly there to lead up to what a black hole is by stating clearly what it is not.
A black hole is not…
A vacuum cleaner—Unless you get close to a black hole (say within 3 radii of a non-rotating black hole’s radius of circumference) orbiting it works mostly the same as any other celestial body.
A very dense object – The physical scales of stellar black holes are similar to neutron stars, but unlike a neutron star, a black hole is a space-time region, not a solid object with a density and definite volume.
A 2D hole or funnel – black holes are space-time objects and so are more properly thought of as 4D objects*.
A portal to another realm – only idealized black holes that have existed forever and have no matter anywhere in them can have wormholes that lead to other places. A real black hole you try to jump through would 1) have formed at some point and 2) have matter in it because you just jumped into it.
*As an aside, this why those people who tell you “a black hole event horizon never forms” or “events inside a black hole never happen” are wrong. The event horizon isn’t just a spatial surface, it’s a space-time hypersurface. You might not see it from an infinitely far distance away, but it is real, and it is still there. It’s just that you’re occupying a 3D slice of the 4D space-time that doesn’t include it. You go into a black hole and you will find it there, and see the events that happen inside a black hole, just as you can’t see Tokyo from NYC, but cross over the horizon far enough and there it will be.**
**Oh dope, did I just explain what an event horizon is using the example of the perspective horizon? Well, actually that’s why it’s called an event horizon, silly.
Some diagrams I hand-drew to use in the AGN planetarium show. My digital art software has been non-functional lately so I figured I might as well go back to colored pencil. The first page is just a diagram of all the structures associated with accreting supermassive black holes (AGN stands for active galactic nucleus which is how the actively feeding black hole manifests from the outside…as a bunch of weird activity in the center of a galaxy). The latter diagram shows the name of different astrophysical phenomena that are all thought to be due to accreting supermassive black holes.
For those that don’t know…
The supermassive black hole feeds from a whirlpool of plasma called an accretion disk. The accretion disk emits a lot of high-intensity ultraviolet light, which ionizes the galaxy in a broad swath called the ionization cone. The two main regions of ionized gas that are observed by astronomers are the broad line region (BLR) and narrow line region (NLR). The BLR is gas that is located close to the accretion disk in the center of the galaxy, and is thought to be moving rapidly, but observations are mixed as to whether the motion is an outflow (shown here), inflow, or simply rotation. The NLR is much more rarefied gas that occupies the ionization cone, and such extends through length scales comparable to the galaxy itself. All of these portions of the AGN features emit in optical light.
Sometimes astronomers can see the BLR and accretion disk light, but most of the time they cannot. To explain this, the AGN unification hypothesis posits that a thick ‘donut’ of cooler gas and dust–the torus–surrounds the BLR. When our line of sight is intercepted by the torus it blocks the BLR from view (”obscuration”). The torus radiates in the mid-infrared.
Just above and below the accretion disk is the corona, which is where UV photons from the accretion disk are boosted up to X-ray energies (hence why I have depicted them as the stereotypical radioactive green). The corona lies at the base of relativstic jets, powerful beams of fast-moving particles that extend out from the center of the galaxy and sometimes go on to punch into intergalactic space. When they do, they can carve enormous cavities into the gas that surrounds galaxies as they gradually slow down and pool into clouds of radio-emitting plasma called radio lobes. The jets are prominent in radio, but emit across the whole electromagnetic spectrum.
The weird thing about jets is that while AGN are famous for them most AGN do not have visible jets. This is why I have chosen to call the powerful AGN QSOs (”quasi-stellar objects”) rather than the more famous quasar. The word quasar comes from “quasi-stellar radio source” and was coined because the first discovered quasar had a prominent radio jet, but most quasars discovered since don’t emit in radio prominently.
The reason for this is unknown. It could be an orientation effect (similar to how we cannot see the BLR in most AGN), but it might also be an intrinsic difference since theoretical models show jets form only at certain accretion levels.
The other big AGN unification mystery is what the source of the obscuration of the BLR really is. Based on the vanilla torus explanation, one would not expect say, AGN in merging galaxies to be more heavily obscured than AGN in isolated galaxies, but this nonetheless is the case. Astronomers currently think obscuration can also be due to random dust clouds in the galaxy, not just the torus. And we don’t exactly know what the torus is either. Does it condense out of the material flowing into the supermassive black hole? Or out of it? Or is it some sort of ‘food reservoir” that the black hole can accrete from?
My book has been selling all over the world, and I thank everyone who bought a copy. It’s just strange to see this in the context of what my readers read!
Microbiology at the NJ Historical Commission Forum
Monmouth University hosted the NJ History Forum where I talked about the great history of New Jersey and Microbiology on behalf of my colleagues at Rutgers.
One presentation is titled The 75th Anniversary of the Discovery of Streptomycin (upcoming in 2019); the other is titled An Official New Jersey State Microbe! Streptomyces griseus. The revolutionary antibiotic streptomycin was discovered as a product the microbe Streptomyces griseus isolated from New Jersey soil.
Authors of the presentations are Douglas Eveleigh, Jeff Boyd, Jessica Lisa, Max Haagblom, and John Warhol.
To learn more about microbiology, check out the book:https://tinyurl.com/Warhol-Small-Guide. It costs less than a burger and a Coke, it lasts longer, and is more fun!
I had a great time talking to students and faculty at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia on Oct 25. Topics were the New Jersey State Microbe, and my book, Dr Warhol’s Periodic Table of Microbes, The Small Guide to Small Things. Both topics hinge on effective science communication, a concept woven throughout the presentation. The skills and tactics needed to effectively interact with the nonscientific public, legislators, and scientists outside of your own discipline were all part of the lively seminar.
Heading to University of the Sciences in Philadelphia on Oct 25 to give a talk about the NJ State Microbe, The Periodic Table of Microbes, and the Small Guide to Small Things.
Thank you, USciences, for the invitation!
Microbiology occurs in a rich cultural environment; this homework list is only a start!
Get this great science book, it costs less than a burger and a Coke, it lasts longer, and is more fun!
I am super excited to invite you to participate in the inaugural ArtSciexhibition,La Rencontre, this spring at ETH Zürich, Switzerland! La Rencontre is an art exhibition for scientists by scientists - we encourage everyone to submit data, videos, illustrations, or any sort of artwork that conveys a scientific idea, message, or concept – whether related to your research, side project or simply data by other scientists that you love and want to illustrate. The goal is to inspire scientists to think about and present their research in new, creative ways that promote science communication. Pieces will be displayed on the green floor in CHN in ETH Zentrum from 22nd April to 6th May, with a vernissage on the 22.04 and an official closing/award ceremony on the 06.05.18.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the role of public sociology because of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
Earlier in the pandemic, I worked with some colleagues on an early literature review scoping policy responses to the pandemic, and I’ve provided feedback on evolving policy research. As an applied sociologist, my focus has been on how race, culture, disability, gender, and other socioeconomics impact how people understand and act on public health initiatives, as well as ethical considerations of COVID research “on the run.”
Since then, I’ve been keeping up with both the research and media coverage of public health responses. I’ve been providing summaries of unfolding information on my social media (primarily Facebook and Instagram stories, as well as Twitter). This started partly to address some of the misconceptions I was seeing amongst my friends and family and I’ve kept this up as it’s been the most efficient way to help people in my life better understand what the restrictions mean for them, or to correct confusing reports.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation. People are hungry for practical advice, but don’t know who to trust (they don’t know where to look for credible resources), or they feel overwhelmed with too many conflicting directions. This is known as information overload, and it leads to poor decision-making.
One of the patterns that has been especially concerning are people writing social media posts, op eds and even setting up consultancies to profiteer from COVID-19 without any health training or policy experience. This contributes to public distrust, conspiracy theories or poor discussion that is not based on evidence. People are choosing to confirm their pre-existing beliefs, rather than engaging critically with scientific information that challenges their perspective. This is known as confirmation bias. It stops people from considering new information and different points of view that might be helpful to their wellbeing.
Reading original scientific journal articles is not always possible as there is often a paywall. Plus, science papers are, by definition, published for the academic community. The language is technical, and the principles can be hard to follow for people who are not subject matter experts. This makes it more important for scientists who have access to write about science research in an accessible manner and to share findings through different communities.
While data on COVID-19 are evolving, and no one can claim to be a definitive COVID-19 expert, the best sources to trust are official sources, such as state Health Departments, epidemiologists, virologists, health practitioners who are providing front-line services (such as Aboriginal-controlled health organisations), and policy analysts who work on COVID-19 responses. Additionally, reliable news sites include the ABC News Australia live blog, Croakey and individual health researchers, such as epidemiologist Dr Zoe Hyde (University of Western Australia) on Twitter.
If you read about a study, how do you know if you can trust the conclusions? What’s the best approach if you wanted to write about a study’s findings for a broader audience, whether it’s your friends and family reading your Facebook feed, or an article in a major news site? Today’s post gives tips for how to read a study using critical thinking principles from sociology, and things to consider if you want to write about, or share, studies that you read about.
My very proud work of MrAko’s (Art Fight) plant-loving trans orc character. [Open image for full quality]
Yes that is a hori hori and plant press. YES I think botany should be represented in fantasy just as much as medicine and animal tracking. YES I drew her because I am also a trans plant lover. ️⚧️ #transinstem
Schrödinger’s King: Paul Rudd challenges Stephen Hawking to a game of Quantum Chess
A bit offtopic. But the video by Caltech’s Institute for Quantum Information and Matter in association with Trouper Productions is pretty darn funny. And it’s about Quantum Physics, so there’s my excuse for posting. Furthermore, it’s narrated by Keanu Reeves, who gives his best to sound like a bad imitation of Keanu Reeves. You have to like it.
The game is real and the stakes are high as the future of humanity hangs in the balance. Can Paul Rudd, an actor, beat Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest minds of our generation, in a game of chess that will determine the future of humanity? Most likely not. Unless…
I referred to solder as “electrical sticky-tack” this week, to explain to a non-techy manager why it’s generally considered Bad to rely on solder structurally.
In part one and part two of this series, I introduced you to at least 23 plant-themed and plant-related podcasts. But wait, there’s more. As podcasts continue to be such a popular medium for entertainment and education, plant podcasts proliferate. You won’t see me complaining. I’m always happy to check out more botanical content. What follows are mini-reviews of a few more of the plant shows I’ve…
my library purchased a new copy of this this year! I’m going to try and convince our collections department that actually, this was a Mistake and it should be weeded immediately but in the meantime, please, i need someone to share my pain (Submitted by exhausted librarian)
———————————
this submission is causing me real physical pain like its literally like getting punched in the gut multiple times. i’m assuming here that this was a conscious choice, because i cannot imagine getting a biology book for kids published with this kind of flagrant mistake.
like not to Go Off but first of all this was a science communicator who decided this was a good way to go about talking about mushrooms and fungi because apparently kids can’t understand that mushrooms are a different thing like plants and animals are different things, and then the publisher agreed that yes, this is good, we can totally heavily imply/outright state that mushrooms are plants by putting them on the front and back cover under the words “a book about plants without flowers” and then further imply/outright state that all plants that dont flower (apparently including mushrooms) fall under the ‘gymnosperm’ label, which by the way is another thing: if we’re assuming that the author did this to try to dumb it down for kids because referring to fungi as ‘not plants’ is too complicated, WHY are they using the ‘gymnosperm’ terminology on the back cover and WHY are they applying that term to all plants that don’t flower?? or are they using it as a specific example of plants that don’t flower, in which case it’s a poorly placed description??? like you gotta choose!!! are you gonna be specific or not!!!
also not to be Like That but JUST saying this strikes me as an example of like… very poor attention being given to botany and mycology in primary education. if you came to a kid’s publisher with a book that was like, ‘things that don’t walk: animals without legs’ and it had bacteria illustrated all over the cover and the back cover was like ‘WHAT is the squamata reptile family and WHY don’t they have legs’ i DOUBT that would fly lmao
Lying to kids about science is the absolute worst thing you can possibly do, ever.
