FREE counter and Web statistics from sitetracker.com
collision detection
content | discontent
send me yours
May 01, 2007
The roundest objects ever built by hand













See that object above, on the right? It's the most perfectly spherical object ever made by hand. It's only the size of a ping pong ball, but its surfaces are so smooth that were it blown up to the size of Earth, the tallest mountain would be only eight feet high. It's one of four spheres that are current floating in Gravity Probe B, which is possibly the coolest piece of space engineering evah.

Gravity Probe B is an audacious attempt by NASA and Stanford to confirm Einsteinian physics by measuring, with utterly berserk precision, how much Earth's enormous mass curves space-time around it. The Probe is a satellite that contains four chambers of superfluid helium, chilled to a martini-like minus-271 degrees Celsius. A sphere -- composed of fused quartz -- floats inside each chamber and spins rapidly, forming a three-dimensional gyroscope. They're so free of any physical disturbance that they form an almost perfect space-time reference system. The spheres can detect changes in their positioning as small as 0.5 milliarcseconds -- roughly the width of a human hair viewed from 20 miles away. Heh.

So here's how it works: The Probe is aligned to a distant guide star, IM Pegasi. According to Newtonian physics, a gyroscope free of any interference ought to point in the same direction for eternity. So if the spheres inside Gravity Probe B drift away from their orientation to IM Pegasi, they're being affected by the Earth's space-time pull -- and we'll be able to measure it and see if it conforms to Einsteinian predictions. Specifically, the two effects we'll be able to see are "frame dragging" and the "geodetic effect". As one scientist described it:

"If experimental science is an art, then I would look at GP-B as a Renaissance masterpiece," says Jeff Kolodziejczak, NASA's Project Scientist for GP-B at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

The whole reason I'm blogging about the Probe now is that it's been in orbit for three years, and NASA is finally getting preliminary data out of it. Apparently the gyroscopes indeed appear to be drifting, though it'll take a while to separate the signal from the noise to fully confirm the frame-dragging effect. In the meantime, if you want to built a papercraft model of the Probe, there are plans here.

I've always wanted to write a humungous magazine feature about Gravity Probe B, because it's such a freaky epitome of the wonderful craziness and bulldogged tenacity of scientists. It was originally proposed 47 years ago (!!) -- but was delayed for decades waiting for funding, waiting for the shuttles to be built to get it aloft, then discovering that, whoops, the shuttles couldn't actually handle that sort of payload, then designing a rocket to finally get it aloft. They also had wait for all manner of engineering breakthroughs to make those spheres. But what a metaphorically lovely finale: The most perfectly round objects ever made by humanity, flying through the void on one of the purest scientific quests ever.

Posted by Clive Thompson at May 01, 2007 11:01 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1648

Comments

I also admire the physicists for their dedication to testing things things they're pretty damn sure are true. ("Until a theory is thoroughly tested, we cannot accept it as fact, and we cannot reliably base further theory or engineering on its postulates.") How about that, evolutionists? Makes your never-tested theories about the origins of life look pretty shabby, eh?

Posted by: Michael S. [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 2, 2007 5:52 PM

I agree -- one of the most admirable parts of the scientific method is its requirement that even stuff we're pretty sure about be tested and retested.

As for evolution -- actually, there have been lots of experiments designed specifically to verify the concept. In contrast, unless I'm mistaken, I'm not aware of any scientific experiments to test the theory of intelligent design.

There have been no successful scientific tests to verify any theories about the origins of life; is that what you meant?

Posted by: Clive [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 2, 2007 6:13 PM

Actually I disagree that there's very much *experimental* evidence for evolution: no one has got close to evolving anything as complex as a human (either "for real" or via computer simulation), let alone doing it reproducibly. As far as I know we've only got a few steps beyond butterfly wings changing colour, which leaves quite a gap.

The experimental evidence for evolution is about 5% of the reason I believe in it, basically. Evolution also does pretty poorly on the "making predictions" criteria for scientific theory, come to think of it. (There's no evolution-theory equivalent of the perihelion precession of Mercury, for example.) Fortunately it does a whole lot better on the "explaining observations" and "better than anything else" criteria.

Posted by: Michael S. [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 3, 2007 7:35 AM

Would one need to observe the evolution of an organism as complex as a human for the theory of evolution to hold true?

Posted by: Clive [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 3, 2007 1:10 PM

("Observe," meaning, "observe in real-time".)

Posted by: Clive [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 3, 2007 1:11 PM

"True" is a strong word in relation to scientific theory! I wouldn't claim truth for any theory, only whether or not it agrees with observations, and in the case of evolution, the opportunity for observation and experiment is fairly limited. (Much more so than is usual for chemistry or physics, for example.)


So, whilst I'm happy to accept evolution as "true" without observing the evolution of a human, I would all the same be pretty thrilled to get experimental confirmation! Real scientists do care about experiment and reproducibility, as demonstrated by Gravity Probe B: $700 million to shoot spheres into space to "test a theory that has been accepted and used for over eighty years."

Posted by: Michael S. [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 3, 2007 5:07 PM

I'm a little confused about the 'made by hand' aspect of the balls, Clive - I looked in the docs you linked to, and I couldn't find any info on how they were made. Do you mean 'made by hand' in the sense that they are individually manufactured (presumably using machines), as opposed to being the results of a mass process (like jawbreakers) or a physical process (like bubbles)? When I think of shiny hand-made balls, this is what I think of.

Posted by: debcha [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 14, 2007 3:52 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

NOTE: If you posted a comment and you can't see it -- try refreshing your browser.


Remember me?