Factors to Consider When Buying A Telescope

When you first become interested in buying a telescope, it can be somewhat of a daunting task. What kind of telescope do you really need? There are so many different kinds to choose from and a very large price range too. What do you want your new telescope to do, and do you really need all of the bells and whistles available? You don't want to pay good money for a telescope that won't give you a satisfactory experience, but neither do you want to pay for features that are just not necessary for what you need.

Here are a number of tips to keep in mind when you are thinking of buying a telescope.

Type of Objective - There are basically 2 kinds of telescope objectives available for home use. These are:

1. Refractor telescopes - these telescopes use a series of lenses to focus light onto the eyepiece. These telescopes are very rugged because they are a closed system and there are no mirrors to adjust so there is virtually no maintenance involved. These models produce some of the sharpest images available, but can be much more expensive to get a really good one.

2. Reflector telescopes - these telescopes use a series of mirrors to focus light onto the eyepiece. These telescopes are usually much more economical, but they are an open tube, so dirt and dust can collect on the mirrors. The mirrors will also need to be periodically aligned as well. However, you can get the most for your money with one of these if you don't mind the maintenance.

Aperture Diameter - The telescope's main function is to gather light, therefore the diameter, or at least the proportion of the objective's aperture is very important. The telescope's light-gathering strength is proportional to the objective's surface area, so bigger is not necessarily better unless the proportions are correct. A good rule of thumb for aperture width is about 3 inches (8 cm) for Refractors, and 4 - 8 inches (10 - 20 cm) for Reflectors.

Eyepiece - One of the most important things to check out when buying a telescope is the eyepiece. If you can afford it, get an eyepiece that is adjustable so that you can adjust the magnification - or at least get a telescope that has interchangeable eyepieces. A good steady focuser is also very important as you don't want the telescope to shake while focusing.

Magnification - Most beginners think that the most important feature in a new telescope would be high magnification, but that is not always the case. If the telescope's light gathering ability is insufficient, all the magnification in the world won't help. A magnification of 40X to 60X per inch of aperture is usually sufficient. The ability of the scope to enlarge an image and keep it sharp mainly depends on the lenses used and the focal length of the telescope.

Mounting - Last but not least, consider how your telescope will be mounted. Will it be mounted rigidly or will it be a portable mount? Make sure whatever mount you get has a low center of gravity so it won't tip over, and that it is the right size for the telescope you get. Mounting it at the right height as to avoid back fatigue is also very important.

Buying a telescope can be very exciting and challenging. Really the most important thing to do is to do your due diligence and research before you buy. Looking at the stars and seeing our planets up close and personal is one of the most incredible experiences a person will have, so you want to make sure you do it right. These tips should point you in the right direction when you consider buying a telescope.

Beautiful Water Moon

Europa, an icy little moon that circles the giant planet Jupiter, probably sustains a global ocean of liquid water beneath a tortured, shattered icy crust. For a long time, weird and jumbled regions of ice disruption, called "chaos terrains", were seen only on Europa, and their origins remained cloaked in mystery. But astronomers now think that the "chaos terrains" formed as the result of a subsurface liquid saltwater lake, equal to all of the Great Lakes on Earth combined. Hidden about 1.9 miles beneath Europa's cracked eggshell-like frozen crust, the ice-embedded lake may be one of the latest potentially habitable environments discovered so far in our Solar System.

Europa, is a fascinating, frigid little world. It is one of the four Galilean moons, discovered in January 1610 by the great Galileo Galilei when he was gazing up into the night sky with his small, primitive "spyglass". The other Galilean moons, the weird sisters of Europa, are Io, Ganymede, and Callisto.

Europa is the sixth largest moon in our Solar System, and few bodies have enticed astronomers as much as this little moon of Jupiter, because it is thought to sport a subsurface global ocean of liquid water--and where there is water, there is the possibility of life. The more astronomers learn about this fascinating and mysterious icy moon, the more they become enchanted with it.

Although Europa was visited by the two spacecraft Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 in the early 1970s, and the twin Voyagers in 1979, these early flybys only produced grainy, dim images. However, these early pictures revealed enough about the little moon to make it intriguing. Pale yellow icy plains were seen in the Voyager images. The plains also tantalizingly displayed red and brown mottled areas. Long cracks were observed, running for thousands of miles over the shattered eggshell-like crust. On Earth, similar cracks would suggest such features as high mountains and deep canyons. But nothing higher than a few kilometers was seen on the moon. In fact, Europa is one of the smoothest bodies in our Solar System.

NASA's Galileo spacecraft imaged Europa during a flyby on September 7, 1996. In fact, so far there have only been flyby missions to this fascinating object. Galileo viewed Europa's surface much more closely than the Pioneers and Voyagers, and it revealed to astronomers a bizarre surface that looked like broken glass, repaired by an icy glue oozing up from below.

The most detailed pictures of Europa show even more intriguing clues that there is slush lurking beneath its brightly shining icy surface. Slightly smaller than Earth's own beloved Moon, Europa's surface temperature could easily freeze an ocean solid over a span of only several million years. However, some astronomers think that warmth from a game of tidal tug-of-war between Europa and Jupiter, as well as other neighboring moons, could be keeping large regions of Europa's subsurface global ocean in a life-friendly liquid state. This process is termed tidal heating, and it refers to a mechanism whereby the gravitational tugs of a nearby object (or objects) flex and bend and contract and expand another object continually. This constant churning causes the victimized object, in this case Europa, to heat up and be considerably more balmy than its great distance from the Sun would otherwise allow it to be.

Images of Europa taken by Galileo in 1997 provide some important evidence suggesting that Europa may be slushy just beneath its glistening cracked icy crust--and possibly even warmer at greater depths. This evidence includes an oddly shallow impact crater, chunky-looking textured blocks of surface material that tantalizingly resemble icebergs on Earth, and openings in the surface where new icy crust appears to have formed between continent-sized plates of ice.

Some of the images focus on the shallow center of a bizarre impact crater dubbed Pwyll. Impact rays and shattered pieces of material scattered over an immense area of the moon tell the tale of a sizeable meteorite that collided violently with Europa relatively recently--"only" about 10 to 100 million years ago. There is also darker debris chaotically scattered around Pwyll. This further suggests that the large crashing meteorite may have dug up some deeply buried material, and tossed it helter-skelter around the crater.

However, the crater's shallow basin and tall surrounding mountain peaks may be whispering the precious secret that the subsurface ice was warm enough to collapse and fill the deep hole created by the impact.

The "chaos terrains" are those regions of the icy moon that are covered with shattered, scrambled, and rotated chunks of crust the size several city blocks. Galileo images show swirly and very rough-looking material between the broken blocks of ice, which indicates that the blocks may once have been lodged atop a bed of slushy stuff that ultimately froze at the very frigid surface temperatures of Europa.

"For decades scientists have thought Jupiter's moon Europa was a likely place for life, but now we have specific, exciting regions on the icy moon to focus our future studies, " Dr. Don Blankenship, senior research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin's Institute for Geophysics, commented in the November 16, 2011 National Geographic News.

In a study released in November 2011, Dr. Blankenship and his colleagues discovered the enormous subsurface lake on Europa by carefully scrutinizing two bumpy, circular features in the old Galileo images, taken about a decade earlier. The "chaos terrains" were shown to be bizarre regions of floating and colliding icebergs and ice flows. This jumbled mess collapsed portions of the little moon's ice shelf.

The team further ascertained the presence of the enormous, embedded lake by drawing a connection between processes seen on Europa and processes seen on our own planet. Ice-piercing radar, that can delve through thick layers of ice sheets, has been used to locate numerous subglacial lakes in Antarctica.

An orbiting spacecraft sporting such an ice-piercing radar is necessary to confirm and map Europa's enormous lake. NASA is considering such a mission, proposed to launch sometime before 2022.

There probably are many more lakes under Europa's ice, Blankenship continued to note. Furthermore, the prospects of searching for life on Europa could greatly improve. This is because research indicates that a percentage of the icy lids that cover the embedded lakes may be considerably thinner than was previously supposed.

Blankenship added that "I think this will naturally create more enthusiasm for a future landing on Europa."

The study was published in the November 24, 2011 issue of the journal Nature.

I am a writer and astronomer whose articles have been published since 1981 in various newspapers, journals, and magazines. Although I have written on a variety of topics, I particularly love writing about astronomy because it gives me the opportunity to communicate to others the many wonders of my field. My first book, "Wisps, Ashes, and Smoke", will be published soon.

Backyard Observatory Domes for Sale

A majority of the astronomers consider investing on their equipment such as telescope and connecting computer system etc. However, those who desire taking their profession to a level that is at its highest know the 'need' to invest into buying or hiring an excellent and efficient workplace too. Having an extremely suitable workplace is more important than having excellent equipment. Since weather changes are not predictable, owing a personal observatory dome ensures the observers that they have more chances/time to perform their work at the right time. Carrying their equipment and huge telescope to places is thus no more needed by the astronomers since backyard observatory domes for sale have resolved the issue to a great extent.

What is a Dome? Half spherical-shaped enclosures that are commonly known as backyard observatory domes consist of equipment used for the observance of both the earthly or other (unearthly) events. There are several vendors offering virtually indestructible, maintenance free and amazingly affordable observatory domes for sale. These backyard observatory domes provide the users shelter against the weather, winds, light windstorms, rain or even hail and also from the annoying voices or noise coming from their respective neighborhood. Sitting inside an observatory dome is thus an experience worth the nominal price you pay for purchasing a dome of your own.

What these domes houses are made of? Mostly, UV stabilized i.e. a very strong polyethylene plastic is used in observatory domes though other materials such as steel, aluminum and fiberglass are also used. Usually, there is an upper door that glides open. The shutter door on the lower side of these particular domes flips outwards instead. There are certain firms that have come up with several modified rather innovative designs and features thus making these backyard observatory domes amazingly affordable for everyone. Usually, the domes are not very heavy to lift or to move. They may be around 200 pounds in weight.

While getting ready for taking astrological pictures or images, setting up their respective equipment may require lot of effort and time for the astronomers. A larger telescope for instance may require more time to be lined up and aligned to the desired acceptable polar coordinates as compared to relevantly smaller equipment. Meantime, the weather conditions may have changed making the 'efforts' useless due to the precious time consumed in installing the equipment. This would simply leave the observer frustrated since he found it hard to connect the telescope or other equipment to the computer system and during the process the live through positions were changed. Therefore, it becomes terribly important that the process of building an observatory is made as simple as possible.

Desired features:

To tackle the above noted problems and several other issues, there should thus be a permanent and mobile 'arrangement' or a multipurpose solution.

• Any dome house must be capable of storing all the necessary equipment so the observers are no longer abandoning their precious telescopes or computers at a separate space or at their residences.

• Backyard domes for sale or field domes must provide the observers with maximum facilities within the limited space for recording of events on a moment's notice.

• Both types of available domes i.e. Pro dome and the Home Dome must also be made of specified materials to protect both. The observer and his equipment against weather and 'unwanted' intruders.

• Domes should also match the observers' desired astronomy specifications and the environmental requirements.

• They must also be easy to install with minimum effort and as rapidly as possible.

A Tiny Blue Dot In Space

The late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, a biologist and History of Science Professor at Harvard University, once noted that "The history of life is not necessarily progressive; it is certainly not predictable. The Earth's creatures have evolved through a series of contingent and fortuitous events."

Our Milky Way Galaxy is also the domicile of 100 billion stars in addition to our own golden, incandescent Sun. Our Star is situated very far from the heart of our Galaxy, where most of the other stars dwell, and where our own supermassive black hole--that weighs millions of times more than the Sun--resides in quiet, though restless, slumber, only to awaken now and then to hungrily devour bits of gas and star-stuff that wander too close to its maw. Our little luminous yellow Star is located halfway to the edge of the Milky Way along the Orion Spiral Arm.

Our Sun is circling around the center of the Milky Way at the speed of half a million miles per hour. Nevertheless, it takes about 200 million years for it to travel around once. Like other spiral galaxies, suspended like gigantic starlit pinwheels in Space, our Milky Way sports a bulge, a disk, and a dark matter halo. Dark matter is mysterious stuff, probably composed of some as-yet unidentified exotic particles that do not interact with light. This is why the dark matter is invisible, making its presence known only by its gravitational interactions with the luminous matter, that we can see.

Although the bulge, disk, and dark matter halo are all components of the same Galaxy, each contains different populations of objects. The halo and central bulge primarily host elderly stars, while the disk is filled with gas, dust, and much more bouncy, youthful stars. Our Sun is, currently, a member of the younger--or, at least, middle-aged--population, at less than 5 billion years of age. The Milky Way Galaxy itself is at least 5 billion years older than that. Our Galaxy is at a minimum 10 billion years old--and it is probably older. In fact, it might be one of the oldest galaxies in the Universe.

It is possible today for astrophysicists to determine the ages of certain stars. Specifically, this means that they can measure the amount of time that has elapsed since these stars were born as the outcome of condensation in dense knots studding huge, dark, frigid, interstellar molecular clouds composed of gas and dust. Some stars are quite youthful--for stars, that is--and are mere bouncing babies at "only" a few million years of age, or less. For example, such extremely young stars dance around happily in the "nearby" Orion Nebula. Our Sun and its family of planets, moons, and assorted other objects, formed about 4.56 billion years ago. However, many of the stars in our Galaxy were born much earlier!

Our tiny blue planet was born from an accretion disk revolving around the ancient Sun almost 5 billion years ago. About 4.53 billion years ago, the Earth and a Mars-sized object, sometimes called Theia, are thought to have crashed into one another, launching a multitude of moonlets into orbit around the ancient Earth. Eventually, these moonlets coalesced to form the Moon. The irresistible gravitational attraction of the newly-born Moon stabilized the Earth's fluctuating axis of rotation and set the stage for the conditions that were so necessary for the emergence of life. Long ago, the Moon was much closer to Earth than it is now. About 4.1 billion years ago, the surface of Earth finally cooled sufficiently for the crust to solidify--up until that time, both Earth and its newborn Moon were probably covered by global oceans of fiery magma. Also, at around this time, the atmosphere and the oceans of our planet formed.

The magic occurred sometime around 3.7 billion years ago. This was when the earliest and most primitive self-replicating nucleic acid tidbits emerged on our planet, probably derived from ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules. The replication of these very primitive tidbits demanded energy; sufficient space to develop; and smaller, even more elementary, constituent building blocks. This necessary space was very rapidly used up by the flourishing brand new tidbits.. This resulted in bitter competition. Natural selection favored those molecules which were most efficient at propagating their own kind. Self-replicating material, in the form of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecules ultimately took over as the most efficient replicators. They quickly developed within enveloping membranes, which provided the stable and nurturing environment so necessary for them to continue replication.

About 3.9 billion years ago, the Late Heavy Bombardment occurred. This was when the greatest number of showering objects pelted the four inner planets: Mercury, Venus, our Earth, and Mars. The objects were probably comets, tossed out of their distant home that was situated beyond the outermost planet, Neptune, in what is called the Kuiper belt. These rudely evicted comets invaded the balmy inner Solar System, wreaking havoc as they rampaged through it. The invading comets of the Late Heavy Bombardment had likely been unceremoniously tossed out of their remote home as a result of the gymnastics engaged in by the giant outer planets--Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune--which hurled them into the inner realm of our Solar System. This persistent shower of destructive, traveling chunks of alien ice and rock, possibly killed off any life that had already evolved, as the oceans boiled away. However, the theory of Panspermia suggests that life may have been transported to Earth by such rampaging meteorites. Of the two scenarios, however, the former is the most likely, and most (if not all) life existing on Earth prior to the Late Heavy Bombardment was extinguished.

Sometime between the Late Heavy Bombardment and 2.5 billion years ago, the very first precious and delicate tiny tidbits of life appeared. These fragile cells used carbon dioxide as a carbon source, and they were also adept at oxidizing inorganic materials to extract the necessary energy. Eventually, these fragile cells developed the ability to perform glycolysis. Glycolysis is a chemical process that liberates the energy of organic molecules such as glucose, and it generates Adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) molecules as short-term energy sources. ATP continues to be used by almost all organisms on Earth, virtually unchanged, to this day.

About 3.5 billion years ago the very last universal ancestor of all the species now living on Earth existed. At this time, a split occurred between Bacteria and Archaea. Bacteria went on to generate ATP.

Photosynthesizing cynanobacteria evolved about 3 billion years ago. These minute bits of life used water as a reducing agent thereby producing oxygen as a waste product! The oxygen that was first oxidized dissolved iron in the oceans, manufacturing iron ore. The oxygen concentration in Earth's atmosphere subsequently rose, and poisoned many of the existing forms of bacteria. The Moon, at this time, was still very close to Earth, appearing as an enormous companion world in the sky--and it caused tides that were 1,000 feet high. The Earth was also continually subjected to extremely strong, hurricane force winds. Both of these occurrences resulted in a great deal of mixing and shaking that is believed to have enhanced evolutionary processes.

The first known footprints on land date to about 530 million years ago. This suggests that animal migrations onto the land from the oceans might have predated the evolution of terrestrial plants. About 475 million years ago, the first plants moved onto land. These primitive plants evolved from green algae that accumulated around the edges of ancient lakes. The first primitive plants were joined in their migration by fungi, which may have aided the invasion of land through symbiosis.

About 363 million years ago, our Earth began to look like home. Insects skittered over the land, and would soon evolve wings and flutter through the air. Sharks roamed the ancient seas with predatory intent. Vegetation covered what was once barren and desolate land with lovely seed-bearing plants. Beautiful, dense forests began to flourish. Four-limbed tetrapods started to adapt to terrestrial life. This era marks the triumphant Great Crawl, when our ancestors that still dwelled in ancient seas, heroically took their first tentative steps out from the water on to the land. Millions of years later, some of the heroic descendants of those brave little creatures would leave their footprints in the dust of the now much more distant Moon.

About 65.5 million years ago, the catastrophic Cretacious-Tertiary Extinction occurred. The disaster killed off about 50% of the animal species on Earth, including all non-avian dinosaurs. This event is believed to have been caused by the impact of a very large asteroid or comet that blasted out a huge crater in the Yucatan. The birds of the modern world are the descendants of those remnant species of avian dinosaurs that were able to survive this event.

About 14,000 years ago, during the so-called Anthropocene period, human beings evolved to attain their present dominant role over other species.

In August 2012, astronomers around the world celebrated the 35th anniversary of the launch of the Voyager 2 spacecraft. This hearty spacecraft would be the first--and so far only--craft to make the long journey to the two dazzling blue and green, remote ice-giant planets, Uranus and Neptune. Voyager 2, and its sister spacecraft, Voyager 1 (launched 16 days after Voyager 2), are still out there exploring, streaking away from our Sun, zipping out to the edge of our Solar System--and beyond. Scientists are breathlessly awaiting the moment when the sister crafts zoom out to the other side--tearing into interstellar space!

"Even 35 years on, our rugged Voyager spacecraft are poised to make new discoveries as we eagerly await the signs that we've entered interstellar space," Dr. Ed Stone told the press on August 21 2012. Dr. Stone is Voyager project scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. He added that "Voyager results turned Jupiter and Saturn into full, tumultuous worlds, their moons from faint dots into distinctive places, and gave us our first glimpses of Uranus and Neptune up-close. We can't wait for Voyager to turn our models of the space beyond our Sun into the first observations from interstellar space."

On February 14, 1990, NASA commanded the Voyager 1 spacecraft to photograph the planets of our Solar System. One image that Voyager 1 returned was that of our Earth, taken from a record distance of "more than 4 billion miles". The fuzzy photograph shows a "pale blue dot" dangling like a tiny spherical bead against an almost incomprehensibly expansive and barren blackness.

In a commencement address delivered on May 11, 1996, the late Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, told of his own thoughts on the deeper meaning of the historic photograph: "Look again at that dot... On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives... It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

Refractor Telescopes For The Serious Backyard Astronomer

Refractor Telescopes and Their Benefits

Ever since Galileo first invented the refractor telescope in the early 1600's, human beings have had a thirst to see the stars and planets close up. The first refractor, consisting of a convex objective lens at the base of a tube and a convex eyepiece at the top was actually first introduced in 1608 but perfected by Galileo in 1611. When we look into the night sky with our naked eye, it is hard to believe that just a couple of lenses could allow us to see the features of Jupiter, or the rings of Saturn or the billowing clouds of distant nebula, but it's true. If you love gazing up at the stars then getting a telescope is an investment you can't do without. But which kind of telescope should you buy?

There are basically 2 kinds of telescopes - reflector telescopes and refractor telescopes. As their names suggest, the reflector uses mirrors to reflect incoming light back to the eyepiece, while refractor uses lenses to refract or bend the light towards the eyepiece. In the movies, when you see Captain Ahab of the Moby Dick whip out a tube to look into, this is what a refractor telescope looks like.

This kind of telescope is the most common type of telescope for the amateur astronomer, and they are very good telescopes, but like anything else you might consider buying, there are always pros and cons.

Advantages of Refractors

One of the best features of these telescopes is that there is virtually no maintenance involved because there are no mirrors to clean or keep aligned. Also, it is a closed system so no moisture or dirt can get into the tube. It is one of the most rugged telescope designs and is easily transported. Also this type of telescope is good for daytime viewing such as looking at scenery or for bird watching. These telescopes are also generally lighter and easier to handle per inch of aperture and therefore easier for children to use.

Disadvantages of Refractors

However, these telescopes are by far the most expensive telescopes per inch of aperture. Also, lenses inherently disperse light into colors which will distort the incoming image. This is called chromatic aberration. There are apochromatic lenses that can correct this problem, and with this correction, these telescopes will give a fantastic image, but the price goes up dramatically when these lenses are employed. After about 3 inches of aperture, the price goes up radically as well. All in all, refractor telescopes, while giving an excellent image, may be a bit pricey for the first time, or amateur astronomer.

If you are a serious astronomer, then there is little choice, you must have a refractor telescope with an apochromatic correcting lens. However, if you are just starting out and not sure how serious your backyard habit may become, you might want to consider a less expensive reflector telescope for starters at least.

Cloudy Nights In Amateur Astronomy

It's usually the bane of any serious amateur astronomer. You've selected your prized telescope and put it up in the daytime. You seriously monitor the skies in the daytime and yes, it all looks excellent, the sky is crystal clear. Then the sun sinks and so the temp lowers and all the clouds move in. What happens now?

One of the best aspects of astronomy is understanding the targets you are looking at. Knowing about your object is a lot more than having the capability to show-off to family and buddies with all your deep comprehension of astronomy. It genuinely delivers home the truth of what you are seeing.

Seeing the Andromeda galaxy for the first time might appear to be a blurry smear through the eyepiece, yet it transforms into something much more sensational when you are aware you are basically looking at a whole galaxy including huge amounts of stars comparable to our own Milky Way. Not to mention, you never know, it may currently have human beings looking right back at you within our Milky Way. The sheer enormousness regarding the size that's involved will make your head hurt attempting to make a sense of it all.

Andromeda is about two and a half million light years out, meaning if perhaps you were moving at the full velocity of light it would take you two and 1 / 2 million years to get right there. Amazing when you think that the velocity of light is really 186,000 miles each second or in order to apply it into perspective, should you be moving at the actual full speed associated with light you would move all around planet Earth 7.5 occasions in just one second!

For that reason purchase yourself a decent manual about astronomy, and with a hot beverage revel in understanding about the various wonders in the evening skies. Once the heavens clear and you finally are able to see these delights it can be made a whole lot more satisfying when you are aware what you really are checking out.

What better way to talk about the views you've discovered and the adventures you've acquired than with like-minded souls via the internet. A large number of community forums are super easy to become a member of and warmly welcome novices. You can find an abundance of information on any kind of trouble you might be having with the pastime and can also request the online community for aid if you ever can't identify the answer you were looking for.

There are so many community forums to pick from, so which should you be a part of? Find one near to your location since the topics by the group will be more highly relevant to your learning. And you simply never know you might start brand new durable relationships. Go to a site and spend some time looking at the discussions before you join, make sure it is relevant to you and once you've discovered the most appropriate one don't be self conscious go ahead and prepare an introduction so the community are aware of a little bit about yourself as well as what you should want from your pastime. You don't really need to reveal any private information.

To The Stars

When so many of us are concentrating on the rat race that is going on, we tend to forget to look at the stars above. One night, before my wife and I, along with her sister, were getting ready to leave for Kansas City in the morning, we spent the night out on the trampoline. It was a night that I will never forget because the Milky Way was shining brightly as we could see billions of stars glimmering in the darkness of space. I laid there in wonder and amazement, looking at the beauty and the grandeur of space.

Stargazing has always been a favorite hobby of mine ever since I got my first telescope. I remember one Christmas night, I took my brand new telescope outside and I got to look at a full moon. I saw many craters and all sorts of mountains and valley's on the moon's surface, but it wasn't powerful enough to look into deep space to view the other planets. It was at that moment that I was immediately hooked on astronomy. My wife bought me a bigger telescope a couple of years ago where I was able to test it out at her parent's house out in the field. So, that night, I pointed the telescope at Saturn and I remembered the excitement that I felt as I looked at a celestial body further than the moon.

To get the most out of stargazing, pick a night when the most celestial objects will be in full view. Also make a note of when the next celestial event is going to take place, such as a meteor shower, solar and lunar eclipses, asteroid passing, the International Space Station flyby, etc. This will be a great way to entertain your family and most importantly, it is a great way to spend time with your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces. Your little ones will always remember this for the rest of their lives. It is also a great way to spend time with your spouse. I still remember that night as my wife and I talked about the Milky Way and the glory of the stars.

If it's just basic stargazing you are going to do during some free time, I recommend buying a smaller telescope to start out with. For the space enthusiast, getting a small telescope may not be enough. I recommend buying a higher power telescope that comes with the accessories that will allow you to take pictures of space objects. Just think of the kind of pictures that you will have in your possession and to be able to share them with your posterity.

Scientific Serendipity

Serendipity means you're looking for one thing, but find something else. Throughout the history of science there are numerous examples of just such fortuitous occurrences. One of the best illustrations of how scientific serendipity can change the world occurred back in 1964, when the first cries of our baby Universe were luckily heard--by chance! It was in that year that Dr. Arno Penzias and Dr. Robert W. Wilson at the Murray Hill facility of Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey noticed a mysterious and inexplicable "noise" coming from their new radio antenna. They later found that what they were, in fact, picking up with their radio dish was the first solid proof that the Universe was born in the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson were noticing the first whispers of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, stretched out to exceedingly long electromagnetic wavelengths due to the expansion of the Universe. As it turns out, anyone can bear witness to the relics of our Universe's birth. If you tune your television set between channels, some of the "snow" that appears on your screen is actually "noise" caused by the CMB radiation.

The CMB radiation is a faint glowing light that fills the entire Cosmos, falling on our little blue planet from all directions with almost unvarying intensity. It is the heat left over from the beginning of our Universe almost 14 billion years ago; the afterglow of the Big Bang. This ancient light whispers to us some very wonderful secrets about an extremely remote epoch that existed long before there were any observers around to witness it first-hand. The CMB is the most ancient light that we can see--it has been traveling to us from the greatest distance that we can observe in Space and Time. This light began its long journey almost 14 billion years ago, and this was billions of years before our planet, our Solar System, or even our ancient Galaxy, the Milky Way, existed. It tells of a vanished, extremely remote time when all that existed was a writhing storm of fire-bedazzling radiation and a raging sea of elementary particles--hardly the relatively quiet and frigid dark place that we know now. The familiar objects that we observe in our Universe at present--the glittering incandescent stars, enchanting planets and moons, and even the majestic galaxies --eventually congealed from these newborn particles, and the Universe expanded and dramatically cooled off.

This precious, glowing relic of our Universe's infancy is a little gift, of sorts, to observers on Earth today. This is because it carries the fossil imprint of those ancient particles--a pattern of exquisitely tiny intensity variations from which scientists can figure out the attributes of the Cosmos.

When the CMB began its long journey billions of years ago, it shone as brightly as the surface of a star, and it was just as hot. However, the expansion of the Universe stretched Space a thousand-fold since then, causing the wavelength of that ancient light to be stretched, as well--to the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The temperature today of that once searing-hot light is a truly frigid 2.73 degrees above absolute zero!

The late Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University wrote in his book Cosmos (1993): "As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it, and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which... filled the universe, moved through the spectrum--from gamma-rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of the fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated. As time passed, the fabric of space continued to expand, the radiation cooled and, in ordinary visible light, for the first time space became dark, as it is today."

George Gamow, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman were the first cosmologists to predict the existence of the CMB in 1948. Alpher and Herman estimated that the temperature of the CMB would be approximately what we now know it to be.

Because the 1948 estimates were not widely discussed in scientific circles, they were rediscovered by Dr. Robert Dicke of Princeton University and the renowned Soviet astrophysicist Dr. Yakov Zel'dovich in the early 1960s. The first published study that discussed the CMB radiation as a possibly detectable entity in astrophysics was authored by two Soviet astrophysicists, Dr. A.G. Doroshkevich and Dr. Igor Novikov, in early 1964. Also in that year, Dr. David Todd Wilkinson and Dr. Peter Roll, who were Dicke's colleagues at Princeton University, began assembling a Dicke Radiometer. In fact, it was a Dicke Radiometer that Penzias and Wilson had built, and were attempting to use for radio astronomy studies of our Milky Way Galaxy and satellite communications experiments, before it started to emit that mysterious "noise". Adding to this delightful little comedy, at around the same time, Dicke,Wilkinson, and Dr. P.J.E Peebles, a mere 37 miles away at Princeton, were preparing to search for the CMB in precisely the same region of the electromagnetic spectrum in which the befuddled Penzias and Wilson were picking up that bizarre and mysterious "noise". Penzias and Wilson were unaware of the new work on the CMB, even though much of it was being performed near them at Princeton. There were also a lot of pigeons at Murray Hill--many of them roosting near the new radio dish. At first, Penzias and Wilson believed that the bizarre and pesty "noise" was caused by pigeon droppings. The pigeons were unceremoniously evicted from their radio dish, and their droppings were dutifully wiped away--but the "noise" persisted. It was low and steady--and very persistent. This residual "noise" was 100 times more intense than Penzias and Wilson had expected and was evenly spread across the entire sky, and it was always there--both day and night! It could not be coming from the Earth, the Sun, or even the Milky Way Galaxy. The rest is history.

The instrument at Bell Labs had an excess antenna temperature which Penzias and Wilson could not explain, and that mysterious "noise" was apparently coming from beyond our Galaxy! Their yelps of exasperation, at long last, reached Dicke. After Dicke had received a telephone call from Murray Hill, he made what is now one of the most famous (and funniest) remarks in the history of science. Dicke turned to his colleagues and said: "We've been scooped!" Penzias and Wilson did not find what they were looking for--they found something else. They found the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, the first strong piece of observational evidence that our Universe had a definite beginning, billions and billions of years ago, in the Big Bang. Peebles had just written a paper discussing the possibility of finding the CMB, and when Penzias and Wilson became aware of this, they finally began to realize the great significance of their serendipitous discovery. The characteristics of the "noise" that Penzias and Wilson had picked up with their radio antenna fit exactly the radiation predicted by Dicke and his colleagues at Princeton. A subsequent meeting between the Murray Hill and Princeton teams reached the historic conclusion that the mysterious antenna temperature was indeed being caused by the long-sought and elusive light dancing to Earth since the beginning of Time--the CMB radiation. Penzias and Wilson received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for their serendipitous discovery.

As Dr. John C. Mather and Dr. John Boslough wrote in their book The Very First Light (1996): "Had Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson known in 1964 of the prediction of Alpher and Herman sixteen years earlier, the two Bell scientists would have been spared a year's work trying to uncover the source of the noise in their horn antenna. Had [Robert] Dicke been aware of the prediction, he could have begun work on his own antenna years earlier without having to wait."

Almost 14 billion years ago, something mysterious and wonderful occurred--the Big Bang birth of our Universe, accompanied by a very brief episode of exponential expansion termed inflation. Why our Universe came into being in that magnificent event is the greatest mystery of all; the greatest mystery that we can ever know. All of the energy and matter that now exist in the Universe was at that first instant concentrated at extraordinarily high density--perhaps into a mathematical point that had no dimensions whatsoever. It is incorrect to imagine that all of the energy and matter in existence was then crumbled and squeezed tightly into a infinitesimal ball, sequestered in a tiny corner of the Universe that we now know. Imagine, instead, the entire Universe, energy and matter, as well as the space they fill, occupying an unimaginably minute volume.

In that great initial explosion, the Universe commenced an expansion that has never ended--and may never end. The CMB is now very cold, shining primarily in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. As such, it is invisible to our human eyes. If we could see microwaves, the entire sky would glow with a haunting and lovely brightness, amazingly uniform in all directions. By studying this ancient light, emitted long before there were stars or galaxies, astronomers can begin to understand the conditions in the Universe on very large scales at very ancient times.

Can Black Holes Evaporate?

Black Holes are astrophysical objects that are so massive, that have gravity so high, that their escape velocity (some seven miles per second on Earth) exceeds the ultimate cosmic speed limit - the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). Since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, nothing (matter and/or energy) once inside a Black Hole can ever get out again - or so the seemingly ironclad logic went.

However, that's all according to classical physics. A physicist by the name of Jacob Bekenstein came up with the idea of applying quantum physics to these objects (upon a suggestion by his mentor John Wheeler - who incidentally coined the phrase "Black Hole"), and once that was done, well lo and behold, these objects apparently exhibited entropy, and therefore had a temperature and therefore must radiate and therefore can vomit out stuff. His ideas were mulled over and over again and finally agreed to and expanded on by the celebrated astrophysicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking. That stuff that a Black Hole can regurgitate now goes under the name of Hawking radiation, or to give credit where credit is due it is technically Bekenstein-Hawking radiation. However, it's usually just called Hawking radiation so I'll stick with that convention.

Of course if Black Holes have a temperature, then they must follow the same laws of thermodynamics as any other object with temperature. One key point in thermodynamics is that energy exchanges between objects are at least partly determined by one object's temperature compared to another object's temperature. The temperature of a hot cup of coffee will stay hot longer the higher the temperature of the environment that surrounds that hot cup of coffee. A Black Hole's temperature must be compared to whatever temperature surrounds that object when considering the fate of the Black Hole. So how does a Black Hole get temperature?

In retrospect, how this happens is obvious (as are all great ideas when applying hindsight).

There is no such thing as the perfect vacuum. That could only be achieved at a temperature of absolute zero where and when everything is 100% frozen stiff. Alas, such a state violates one of the most fundamental principles of quantum physics - the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - where it is impossible to know both the momentum and position of anything with 100% precision. If something were at absolute zero, frozen stiff and standing still, you'd know both the momentum (which would be zero) and position (at a standstill) of that something with absolute precision.

Since there is always a minimum state of energy anywhere in the Universe (something above absolute zero), and since energy and mass are equivalent (Einstein's famous formula/equation), then that energy state, the false not-quite-absolute-zero vacuum, the vacuum energy*, can generate mass - virtual particles. However, the particles come in matter-antimatter pairs, which usually immediately annihilate and return to their former pure energy state. BUT, and there is always, a BUT - there's an exception to the rule - that normal state of affairs can be thwarted.

The vacuum energy, that which can generate particle-antiparticle pairs, exists everywhere where existence has any meaning. Part of that existence is an area called the event horizon**, which is a concept related to the concept we call Black Holes. These cosmic objects all have an event horizon which surrounds them.

The event horizon surrounding a Black Hole is that somewhat fuzzy region that separates the region (below the event horizon) from which gravity rules over the speed of light, and that region (above the event horizon) where gravity's escape velocity can't quite dominate that speed of light velocity. I say its "fuzzy" since it's not razor sharp, albeit nearly so.

The vacuum energy is part and parcel of the space surrounding the event horizon, above, below and spot-on. Now, what if that vacuum energy generates a pair of virtual particles, one each popping into existence above the event horizon; one below the event horizon. Then, the particles will be unable to annihilate and recombine into pure energy. One will stay within the Black Hole. The other, being above the event horizon, can be dealt a 'get out of jail' card. And thus, slowly, ever so slowly, but ever so surely, these cosmic sinks loses mass, thus energy, and they evaporate.

Here's the general picture. Black Holes can only radiate from the event horizon region which, in a very large cosmic sink is going to be very cold because it's not radiating very much, so initially only things like the mass-less photon escapes. Assuming there's no incoming to replace the loss, the cosmic sink shrinks, and as it gets smaller it warms up slightly (that's what things that shrink tend to do) and can radiate particles with small mass - say neutrinos. When the cosmic sink is tiny, it's very warm, in a relative sense, and it can go out with a 'bang', maybe emitting an electron or positron which is way more massive. When there's no more Black Hole, the vacuum energy still produces at random virtual particle pairs, but there's no more event horizon from which to separate those virtual particle pairs and thus its all back to normal - the two annihilate and return to their vacuum energy state. That's where the popular accounts end. End of story. The ultimate fate of Black Holes will be to evaporate via Hawking radiation, even if it does take trillions of years.

Alas, the written texts forget to mention that radiation emission (and other forms of emitted stuff) is a two-way street, not a one-way street. Black Holes can acquire stuff, as well as radiate stuff. If deposits exceed withdrawals, then these cosmic sinks will always have a positive 'stuff' balance and thus won't fully evaporate. Now this is perhaps why Hawking radiation hasn't been observed. The tiny amount of Hawking radiation (outgoing) will be swamped by the greater, many orders of magnitude greater, amounts of incoming radiation and other stuff impacting the Black Hole.

Forget these universal sinks (and their massive gravity) for a moment and concentrate on Planet Earth. Even at night, you see lots of suns - stars. You see them because they are radiating photons - particles of electromagnetic energy of which visible light is a small part. In fact you only detect a tiny fraction of visual photons because your visual detection devices (eyes) aren't that efficient. Optical telescopes pick up a lot more of them, but they're still just as real. You are also being hit by photons in the infrared, the ultraviolet, in radio wavelengths, X-ray photons, gamma-ray photons, etc. Though Earth's atmosphere shields us from some of these photons (ultraviolet photons are far greater in number at the top of our atmosphere than at the bottom), you still get impacted by multi-billions of them; Planet Earth many orders of magnitude more. Some of the photons get reflected back into space; these don't add to Earth's energy/mass balance. Overall, there are roughly one billion photons for each and every fundamental particle with mass, like electrons and neutrinos.

Now in addition Earth (and you too) gets hit with cosmic rays, neutrinos, and cosmic dust. Even if you luck out, Planet Earth gets impacted by meteors and other outer space debris, sometimes debris large enough to not only hit the surface but do considerable damage. Planet Earth's mass increases by many tons a day, all due to Earth's sweeping up of the interplanetary dust and small rocks that intersect Earth's orbit. The trillions of neutrinos that hit us are so ghostly that nearly all pass right through you and the entire planet as well despite them having a tiny amount of mass, so as far as our planet is concerned, they are of little significance.

Now what about a Black Hole? Clearly these objects aren't isolated from the rest of the cosmos and other objects therein. If you were just outside the event horizon you'd 'see' photons (of all wavelengths) because you'd see stars and galaxies, etc. just like you can locally. Neutrinos would still pass right through you on their way to their doom once passing through the event horizon. The Universe is full of interstellar and intergalactic atoms and molecules and dust and of course lots of larger stuff a Black Hole can snack on. Black Holes will sweep up stuff just like Earth does, only more so since it has more gravity with which to grab hold of stuff with, and also because once caught there's no escape for the cosmic fish. Unlike Earth, everything that crosses that event horizon, that hits the cosmic sink, won't be reflected back (like photons). Neutrinos that can pass through light-years worth of solid lead without even 'breathing hard' will be imprisoned when they try that trick in a Black Hole's inner sanctum. And of course atoms, molecules, interstellar dust, the big chunks will also get imprisoned.

But we can imagine an idealized cosmos where all Black Holes have swallowed up all existing radiated particles (photons), all the atoms, molecules, the dust and all the bigger stuff - all those stars and planets; asteroids and comets; even all that mysterious 'dark matter'. So you have a cosmos of just universal cosmic sinks and the vacuum energy (well maybe a few bits and pieces escaped, but so few to be of no consequence). Of course there is one further logical extension. cosmic sinks can swallow other cosmic sinks. Black Holes can merge to form bigger Black Holes. The final product is that the cosmos consists of one Black Hole - the Mother of all cosmic sinks - plus the vacuum energy! So you end up with one Black Hole left standing with nothing left to eat.

Okay, so the only scenario now possible is that this Mother of all Black Holes evaporates via Hawking radiation. It might take trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years, but evaporate it does. Since matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, once the Mother of Black Holes has finally gone 'poof', the Universe is right back where it started from - full of stuff from photons to fundamental particles which them undergo chemistry to form atoms and molecules and stars and planets and perhaps life - and new Black Holes!

Perhaps this is a new and improved version of a cyclic/oscillating universe! - But then again, maybe not. There's a fly in that ointment (but I had you going for a while back there!). That "idealized cosmos" was only a 'what if' thought experiment.

Firstly, it's actually very, very unlikely all the Black Holes in the Universe will ever merge together as long as the Universe keeps expanding. Since the galaxies are getting farther and farther away from each other due to that expansion, the collection of Black Holes contained within each galaxy keep getting further and further apart from other clusters of Black Holes contained within other galaxies. It's like the passengers in one car get more and more remote from the passengers in another car when each car is going at different velocities and heading in different directions.

Now the collection of all Black Holes in any one galaxy could well coalesce into one super Black Hole galaxy. You have a galaxy that instead of containing billions and billions of stars and debris and particles now consists of just one Black Hole - the car only has one occupant. You have a pure Black Hole galaxy, or a galactic sized Black Hole.

One might end up with a Universe composed of just these pure Black Hole galaxies, all spreading farther and farther apart over time.

But secondly, there's another fly in the ointment. All the space that separates these pure Black Hole galaxies from each other isn't a perfect vacuum, quite apart from the vacuum energy. All the radiating stars and stuff may have been gobbled up within each galaxy, but all of interplanetary space, all of interstellar space, and all of intergalactic space, isn't pure vacuum. There's still the 'it's everywhere, it's everywhere' Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

So what's this CMBR? If you have a massive hot explosion (like the Big Bang event is alleged to have been), and all that heat energy expands and expands, then you'd expect the temperature of the area occupied by that energy to drop, the temperature ever decreasing as the volume that finite amount of energy occupies increases. As the energy expands it gets diluted and thus cools, but can never reach an absolute zero temperature for reasons already noted. And that's just what we find on a universal scale. There's a fine microwave energy "hiss" representing a temperature a few degrees above absolute zero that's absolutely everywhere in the cosmos. That's the diluted heat energy of the very hot Big Bang - well it has been a long time since the Big Bang event (13.7 billion years worth of time) and that energy is now spread throughout a lot of cosmic volume. That microwave "hiss", called the CMBR, was predicted way before it was discovered. There's no doubt that it exists.

Since the CMBR is just photons with very long wavelengths, Black Holes could suck up the CMBR photons as easily as light photons. Removal of CMRB photons, already representing a temperature just slightly about the theoretical minimum - absolute zero - would mean the Universe gets even colder, which it would anyway since the Universe is ever expanding and thus available electromagnetic energy (photons) is ever diluting. Combining the two effects and the Universe is a chilly place indeed and will get even colder.

However, it's probably not possible for Black Holes collectively to swallow up all of the CMBR since there will come a point of diminishing returns. What happens when the temperature of Black Holes equals the temperature of the Universe at large - the CMBR? The answer is thermal equilibrium like when your hot cup of coffee cools off to room temperature. Input into Black Holes from the CMBR will equal output via Hawking radiation. For every photon emitted via Hawking radiation, a CMBR photon gets sucked in. What does that mean? It means a Black Hole can not evaporate.

What about very tiny (micro) Black Holes that are relatively 'hot'? Might they go 'poof' before thermal equilibrium is achieved? Will the contents of the Black Hole evaporate into the surrounding cosmos before they can equate to the surrounding temperature? The analogy might be like a hot drop of water could evaporate into the cold atmosphere before the liquid water drop can attain the temperature of its surrounding environment.

Even so, I still imagine that in the current matter and radiation dominated Universe, incoming would still exceed outgoing.

Of course if you could take a Black Hole, isolate and shield it from the rest of the cosmos and all that it contains, so all you have is the Black Hole and its internal energy (including the all pervading vacuum energy therein). An isolated Black Hole would be in a setting equivalent to putting it into an absolute zero temperature environment. If that's the case then outgoing would exceed incoming since there could be no incoming, and therefore that Black Hole would then radiate and slowly evaporate and eventually go 'poof'. BUT, and there's always a BUT, I can not envision any scenario where a Black Hole can exist in such a theoretical isolation. So, Professor Hawking is quite correct - in theory. In practice, in the here and now, input exceeds Hawking radiation output, and even in the unimaginably far distant future equilibrium will be established where input equals output.

*If it helps to conceive of the concept of the vacuum energy, here's an analogy. Think of the invisible but energetic atmosphere as the vacuum energy. Part of that atmosphere consists of invisible water vapour. But, all of a sudden, and for reasons that must have been mysterious to the ancients, part of the atmosphere undergoes a phase change into something you can see; into something solid - like a particle. You get mist/fog (clouds), rain drops, snow, sleet, hail, etc. Then, equally mysterious, those solid bits eventually undergo another phase change (evaporation standing in for annihilation) back to invisible water vapour in the equally invisible atmosphere. And so you have the invisible vacuum energy that generates particle-antiparticle pairs which annihilate back into the vacuum energy.

The Enchantment of Optical Telescopes

People have long looked to the stars for answers to numerous questions. What exists beyond planet Earth? Are humans the only intelligent life in the universe? What do other planets look like? In order to answer these questions and many more, craftsmen and scientists built and perfected telescopes made to search the heavens for answers. Different types of optical telescopes were invented over time to help mankind search the heavens.

Galileo is credited with perfecting the first optical telescope used in astronomical exploration, improving on the design of spectacle-makers and opticians. The Galilean telescope is classified as a refractor, the earliest and simplest optical telescope type created. Refractors work by bending light when it passes through a lens set at the front of a long tube. All light rays meet at the back of the tube, converging on the eye of the viewer. These telescopes are cheaper than the other types and are simpler to make than later varieties of telescope.

Refractors, however, had several flaws, one of which is the distortion--called chromatic aberration--that occurs when lights of different wavelengths come to focus in different places within the tube. Isaac Newton solved this problem by inserting mirrors in the telescopic tube, inventing the reflector telescope. Some of these mirrors decrease the amount of light that enters the telescope, but the increase in clarity is outweighs the decrease in light. These telescopes are good for beginners and experts alike and are used in numerous small and large-scale astronomical explorations.

Reflectors enable the construction of large telescopes with sizable reflectors built in them. Scientists learned that they could get better results with a large collection of smaller mirrors than they could with a small number of larger mirrors. These large telescopes have taken clear pictures that have astonished scientists and the general public with their content. Size and number of mirrors, however, are not the only factors involved with the clarity of telescopic photographs.

The Space Age presented astronomers with opportunities never before open to them. In 1990, NASA launched the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit, the world's first space-based telescope. Images obtained from outside the Earth's atmosphere are clearer than those captured beneath it because the atmosphere is constantly moving and shifting. This movement causes blurring referred to as "seeing," but this blurring is not present in Hubble photographs due to it being beyond the Earth's atmosphere. The Hubble will be replaced by the newer, more modern James Webb Space Telescope that will have enhanced visual and infrared viewing capabilities.

Other types of telescope are the catadioptric and infrared telescopes. The catadioptric telescope makes use of both reflection and refraction to capture images and is generally contained in a more compact design than is often used for other telescopes. The Schmidt-Cassegrain model is the most popular catadioptric telescope and is quite popular with astronomers due to its image quality. Infrared telescopes see limited use because they are only effective in chilled regions and areas shielded from heat. They are used to detect emitted radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum and come in ground-based, air-borne, and space models.

The Big Bang's Metaphysical Baggage

When anyone ponders the origin and evolution of our Universe, the science of cosmology, one is confronted with the Big Bang theory - the Big Bang event. So, what did the Big Bang do, or didn't do; what was it, or wasn't? And, most importantly, should you put any credibility into the Big Bang scenario seeing as how 1) nobody was around to witness the event, and 2) the scenario, as given by the standard model, is grossly in violation of the very laws, principles and relationships of physics that you'd expect cosmologists to support. Are there any solutions that are out-of-the-box that can reconcile the Big Bang event without violating what scientists should hold most dear? I can think of two!

For those of you unacquainted with the Big Bang scenario, in the beginning (13.7 billion years ago) the Big Bang event created our Universe - all of space and time; all of matter and energy; all from a volume less than a standard pinhead! Now for the objections!

THE BIG BANG VIOLATES BASIC PHYSICS

1) Standard Big Bang violation number one - the Big Bang didn't create time:

The concept of time is nothing more than a measurement of rate-of-change. If nothing ever changed, the concept of time would be meaningless. Now change suggests there must be at least two events. Event One happens; Event Two happens. The change is that difference between the state of play identified with Event One and the state of play identified with Event Two. That change equates into a time differential. Event One happens at a time separate and apart from that of Event Two. Event One if it's the cause of Event Two, must have happened prior to Event Two. Event Two in turn, can act as the cause of Event Three, and so on. Translated, there was no first event; there was no first cause. There was no first event because there had to be a prior cause that caused that event. There was no first cause because there had to have been an earlier event that caused that cause.

Now the Big Bang event was both a cause and an effect. As a cause, the Big Bang caused the subsequent event, the kick-starting of the evolution of our Universe. As an effect, well something prior to the Big Bang must have acted as a cause of the Big Bang effect. Translated, that cause must have been prior in time to the Big Bang; therefore there is such a thing as a before the Big Bang and therefore the Big Bang event could NOT have created time. Taken to its logical conclusion, there could never have been a first cause; there could never be a first effect, therefore time is infinite since the chicken (cause) and egg (effect) paradox is only solvable by postulating infinity.

2) Standard Big Bang violation number two - the Big Bang didn't create space:

This supposition is easily disposed of. Can any handyman reading this think of any possibility of how they could create something, anything, be it building something from scratch, or writing words on paper, or even thinking those words or thinking about building something, without there being pre-existing space, be it space in your garage, space that exists in your exercise book, or the space that exists between your ears that conceives of building X or writing Y? No? Nothing, but nothing, springs into reality, even if only a nebulous mental reality, without there being pre-existing space. The Big Bang is a reality. It had to have been created in a reality. Any reality has a space or volume component. Therefore, the Big Bang (creation of our Universe) event happened in pre-existing space or volume; therefore the Big Bang event did not, could not, have created space. You can not create your own space, the space you yourself exist in. It's sort of like giving birth to your own self. It's a paradox.

3) Standard Big Bang violation number three - the Big Bang didn't create matter/energy:

One of the most cherished conservation principles, drummed into every science student, from junior high through university, is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed in form. Also, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed in form. Post Einstein, the two have been combined, since matter can be turned into energy and vice versa. However, the central bit is creation. Creation from nothing (or destruction into nothing) is not allowed - except for some unfashionable reason at the Big Bang according the standard model of cosmology. Why this should be the sole exception to the rule is quite beyond me.

Now there is such a thing as creation of virtual particles from the vacuum energy (quantum fluctuations). However that's not a free lunch (something created from nothing). It's the conversion of energy to mass (as per Einstein's famous equation) and the virtual particles can annihilate each other and return back into energy. I just thought I'd better mention that in case some bright spark considered that process a mini version of the Big Bang. It's not as in this case the creation (and annihilation) of virtual particles would be just a very, very tiny bang that violates nothing in terms of the conservation of matter and energy.

4) Standard Big Bang violation number four - the Big Bang wasn't a pinhead event:

The Big Bang wasn't a quantum event: The Universe is expanding, ever expanding. That's not in doubt (see below). Standard model cosmologists now play that expanding Universe 'film' in reverse. Travel back in time and the Universe is contracting, ever contacting. Alas, where do you stop that contraction? Well the standard model says when the Universe achieves a volume tinier than the tiniest subatomic particle! When (according to some texts) the Universe has achieved infinite density in zero volume - okay, maybe as close to infinite density and as close to zero volume as makes no odds. Translated, in the beginning the Universe was something within the realm of quantum physics!

Now just because you can run the clock backwards to such extremes, doesn't mean that that reflects reality. How any scientist can say with a straight face that you can cram the entirety of not only the observable Universe, but the entire Universe (which is quite a bit larger yet again) into the volume smaller than the most fundamental of elementary particles is beyond me. Either I'm nuts for not comprehending the bloody obvious, or the standard modellers are collectively out of their stark raving minds. Actually I suspect the latter because they are caught out in a Catch-22. They are between the proverbial rock and hard place.

Now if cosmologists really believe the entire contents of our Universe was crammed into a small space, even one larger than quantum-sized, then of necessity you have our embryo Universe nicely, and tightly, confined within a Black Hole! Nothing can escape from a Black Hole (except Hawking radiation, but that leakage is so slow it's like having just one drop of water come through your roof over the duration of a category five hurricane). So you can't have a Big Bang that releases our Universe from its Black Hole prison. So there! The Big Bang had to have been of such a size that a Black Hole was not part of the picture.

CORRECTIONS TO THE BIG BANG STANDARD MODEL

1) Correction number one - the Big Bang was a macro event:

I'm not out of my stark raving mind, so it's the standard modellers that are totally nuts. Now that's easy to say, but basic everyday logic backs me up. Let's start with the notion that it is impossible to achieve infinite density. There is a limit, a finite limit, to how much stuff you can cram into how much space there is available (which is what density is - mass per unit volume). Once that limit is reached, any more stuff added on will not increase the density any further, just increase the volume. Keep on keeping on piling on the stuff and it won't take very much stuff that's value added to increase the volume beyond the realm of the quantum. Once beyond that boundary, you're in the realm of the macro, and macro means sizes above that of a pinhead.

In this case, I suggest the ultimate size was multi-billions of pinheads worth. Regardless, macro rules the Big Bang. In our reverse-the-expanding-universe film, try imaging doing that with an expanding hot air balloon. If you reverse that inflation, do you stop when the balloon is devoid of air (the sensible thing to do), or do you continue the contraction until the balloon is smaller than the full stop at the bottom of this sentence's question mark? Of course you don't go beyond the point of commonsense, yet that is what the standard modellers have done. Further, they insist we swallow their lack of commonsense (not of course that that is actually suggested by them), hook, line and cosmological sinker.

2) Correction number two - The Big Bang spewed out matter/energy into existing time and space:

If the Big Bang event was a 'spew' event, an event which must have had both pre-existing space and time coordinates (if you spew, you do so at a particular place at a particular time), and if matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed, then of necessity the Big Bang spew (of matter/energy) happened I repeat in already existing space and time. Nothing could be more obvious.

BIG BANG EVIDENCE

If the Big Bang is so apparently wrong on so many fundamental counts, then what's the positive evidence for it? What prompts cosmologists to advocate the standard model?

1) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR): If you have a massive hot explosion (like the Big Bang), and all that heat energy expands and expands, then you'd expect the temperature of the area occupied by that energy to drop, the temperature ever decreasing as the volume that finite amount of energy occupies increases. As the energy expands it gets diluted and thus cools, but can never reach an absolute zero temperature. And that's just what we find on the scale of the Universe. There's a fine microwave energy "hiss" representing a temperature a few degrees above absolute zero that's everywhere in the cosmos. That's the diluted heat energy of the very hot Big Bang - well it has been a long time and is now spread throughout a lot of volume. That microwave "hiss", called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), was predicted way before it was discovered, and one bona fide way of confirming evidence for a theory is to make predictions that are born out by experimental observations.

2) Composition of the Universe: At the theoretical but expected temperatures and pressures of the Big Bang, you might expect a certain amount of some interesting nuclear chemistry to take place and generate various substances. Particle physicists used to calculating such things predicted the relative amounts and types of stuff the Big Bang event would generate, and the theory matches observations to a high degree of accuracy - nearly all hydrogen and helium will be created by a ratio of roughly three to one. All the rest of stuff (very, very minor amounts relative to hydrogen and helium) that we know and love (like oxygen and iron and gold, etc.) was synthesised via the conversion of hydrogen and helium to those heavier elements by nuclear fusion processes - cosmic alchemy - in stars and often resultant supernovae, not in the Big Bang.

3) Expansion: If you have a large explosion, a really big bang, a violent vomit event, you'd expect the bits that received the most oomph, the bits with the most energy would be expelled the fastest; other bits with less energy would lose the race (if this were a track meet). And thus the bits of spewed stuff spreads out - fastest in front, like a marathon run. A bacterium on one of these bits would see every other bit moving away from it. Some faster bits are outpacing the bacterium inhabited bit; the bacterium occupied bit is outpacing and leaving behind the slower bits. If the bacterium assumes it is standing still, then both the faster and slower moving bits appear to be receding away from it. The bacterium observes all other bits moving away from it at speeds proportional to their distance from it. The bacterium might assume from all of this that its bit was a special bit - the centre bit - but we can see that's not so. Any bacterium on any of the bits would conclude the same thing. They too would be wrong. Does that mean there was no centre? Of course there was. Equally incorrect would be the conclusion that there was no centre - there was, the site of the original big spew.

Substitute our local gravitationally bound cluster of galaxies as the bacterium's bit; all other external galaxies and clusters of galaxies that have no connection to our local galactic group are the other bits, and there's your analogy. Do we observe these other galactic bits to be moving away from us at velocities proportional to their distance from us? Yes indeed; you bet we do; spot-on!

As an alternative, let's look at a marathon analogy. We have this long distance marathon that starts off with say 1000 runners at a specific point in time and space. The finishing line is at a 150 mile radius out and the runners can run in any direction they choose. They, for the sake of this analogy, run at 15, 12, 9, 6 or 3 miles per hour. Let's look at the relativities from the point of view of the middle runner, the one running at 9 miles per hour. After one hour he sees the 15 mph runner six miles ahead running at a relative velocity of 6 mph; the 12 mph runner 3 miles ahead with a relative velocity of 3 mph; the 6 mph runner 3 miles behind also at a relative velocity of 3 mph; and the 3 mph runner 6 miles behind with a velocity relative to our 9 mph runner of 6 mph - that's assuming all took off and headed in one direction.

But if the 9 mph runner looks at those running in the exact opposite direction, the anti 3 mph runner is 12 miles behind with a relative velocity between them of 12 mph; the anti 6 mph runner is 15 miles away with, you guessed it a relative velocity difference of 15 mph; the anti 9 mph runner is 18 miles distant, relative velocity 18 mph; the anti 12 mph runner is 21 miles away at 21 mph relative velocity; the anti 15 mph runner is 24 miles away and moving away at 24 mph. Translated, there is a direct correlation between how far away the various runners are, and how fast they are running, which you can graph for verification. After two hours the distances between any two runners moving at different velocities will have doubled; after three hours trebled; after four hours quadrupled, and so on, though each runner is maintaining their respective velocities. Again, the relationship holds for each runner; each runner might think themselves in the centre as all other runners appear to be moving away from that runner's point of view, yet it's not the case that any runner is the centre - yet there was a centre when the starting gun went off.

Now kindly note that there is nothing in that trilogy of evidence for the Big Bang that requires that event to have: 1) created time; 2) created space; and 3) to have been a quantum-sized happening.

WHERE'S THE RECIPE BOOK?

The ultimate recipe book that would support the Big Bang event's causality with the creation of time and space; the origin of matter and energy, has yet to be written by those advocating that very point of view.

There's no recipe to the best of my knowledge for how to cook up a batch of time!

Equally there's no recipe for how to bake a cake of space!

How do you mix up a quark salad or a neutrino soup when there's nothing in the pantry to start off with? Can anyone please give me the recipe?

From an equally empty supermarket you apparently can produce a kinetic energy pie. I want to see the recipe for that!

The Universe, it has been said, is the ultimate free lunch. But a lunch still needs a recipe book. When physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists can actually write and publish such a cookbook, well then its Nobel Prizes all around. Till then, I think they should veer away from statements about the creation of time, space, matter and energy from nothing. Till then, my mantra remains "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

BEFORE THE BIG BANG

While I'm convinced there was a before the Big Bang, the nature of that 'before' is vague at best since the transition between before the Big Bang through the Big Bang to after the Big Bang is unknown (at present anyway), since the relevant equations break down into pure nonsense under those extremes. What's probably reasonable is to call whatever existed pre Big Bang a 'universe', maybe a 'universe' within a larger Multiverse. If conservation laws have any meaning, that 'universe' (within a Multiverse perhaps) contained the same amount of stuff (matter and energy) as ours does though the mix might have been different. This pre Big Bang 'universe' certainly consisted of volume (space) and change (time). What's less certain is whether that 'universe's' laws, principles and relationships of physics were the same as ours. If not, just about anything goes. It's probably more reasonable and constructive to assume their physics is our physics. Translated, to answer Einstein's famous question, God, or Mother Nature, had no choice in the matter about how to construct or arrange a universe.

WHAT CAUSES EXPLOSIONS?

What caused the Big Bang explosion? Okay, we have a pre Big Bang 'universe'. Something happened there that caused our Big Bang explosion. What causes explosions (ultimately a lot of kinetic energy) and could they be up to the task of causing our Big Bang spew?

Well fine particulate matter like coal dust or equivalents when in the presence of oxygen and ignited can violently explode and expand. Still, that's hardly a sufficient means to create our Universe. However, that's a form of chemical energy, and under the right conditions, chemical energy can be released quickly enough that for all practical purposes you have an explosion - think of gunpowder, a firecracker, sticks of dynamite, hand grenades or their mature equivalents, conventional bombs dropped from aircraft, or even the mini controlled explosions that drive your automobile engine and hence your car. You also have other explosive mixtures, like when sodium hits water, and there are lots more to boot, often the staple of high school chemistry classes. However, chemicals are very inefficient in terms of being converted to energy. Hardly any of the matter gets converted to energy. Chemical energy is not the way to proceed to generate a really big, Big Bang.

Then there is nuclear energy. Atomic energy can be controlled, released steady-as-she-goes, as in electricity-generating nuclear power plants or facilities. Or, nuclear energy can be released in real quick-smart fashion, as in uncontrolled reactions that result in ka-booms that produce mushroom clouds as in thermonuclear weapons; the A-bomb, the H-bomb, etc. Energy is released when atomic nuclei are split apart (fission) or rammed together (fusion). It's the former that produces our electricity; both can power up those mushroom clouds. Its fusion that powers our Sun (and all the other shinning stars), which in simple form is just one gigantic bomb continuously going off. Only the Sun's immense inward gravity contains the explosion (outward radiative pressure) keeping it confined to the circular disc we observe in the daytime sky. Alas, fuel eventually runs out, in petrol tanks and in stars. In stars, when the fuel is finally consumed, gravity wins. Stars collapse slowly, or if originally massive enough, really suddenly. These massive stars implode; rebound and explode - a supernova is born. But even a supernova pales in comparison to what the Big Bang must have been like, for even supernovae in particular, and nuclear energy in general, while more efficient in converting matter to energy relative to chemical energy, still would fail any efficiency audit.

If you want to pass the matter-to-energy efficiency exam, there's only one game in town: matter meets antimatter! Matter-antimatter reactions produce the most efficient means known to humans of generating explosive energy - 100% efficiency to be precise. Translated, 100% of the matter (and the antimatter) gets converted to energy. No leftovers. If a little bit of matter can generate a massive amount of energy in ultimately what amounts to a relatively highly inefficient nuclear fusion process, imagine what a massive amount of matter meets antimatter could generate!

One could image a super-lump of matter merging with an ever-so-slightly-less super-lump of antimatter. That would in theory result in a super-ultra violent explosion (the Big Bang) but giving us, our Universe, its matter dominance (over antimatter) that we observe. However, I strongly suspect that such super-sized lumps would have to be so massive that they would turn into Black Holes first, and the merger of two Black Holes, even one each of matter and antimatter, just gives you a larger Black Hole. All annihilation hell might be going on inside, but since the explosion can't escape the pull of a Black Hole's gravity, it's of no consequence.

Still, as the most efficient means of generating explosive kinetic energy, getting the biggest bang for your buck, matter-antimatter annihilation needs some further thought and consideration. Is there a way of generating a Big Bang via the matter-antimatter component of a prior, pre-Big Bang 'universe' without the massive lumps?

AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

So what if there is more than one expanding pre-Big Bang 'universe', say a pre-Big Bang Multiverse that contains lots of expanding 'universes'. Some of these 'universes' are, like our own Universe, matter dominated. Some however are antimatter rich. Now say one of each start to intersect at their expanding boundaries. There will be very little direct meeting of the two minds since the matter (and antimatter) is spread thinly. It's like you can have two galaxies collide without there being any actual collisions between the stars contained in each, because the distance between those stars is vast relative to the sizes of the stars. What does rule the roost however is the gravitational force. Slowly, but surely, the intersection starts the slow but sure collapse of all the stuff. Eventually, the bits get close enough where a few matter-antimatter annihilations take place, but that oomph drives more bits into each other's arms and so you quickly get a chain reaction yet one that transpires in a medium still tenuous enough and a region without sufficient density to form a super-sized lump and a harmless Black Hole. Might that matter-antimatter chain reaction manifest itself as a non-quantum, macro Big Bang - our Big Bang?

Whether this scenario is plausible or even possible I know not, but it has a nice feel to it; it just might be. Even if not, it might suggest a seed for the next generation of cosmologists, or those currently more cosmologically savvy, to pursue.

YET ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE

Lastly, here's a wicked curve ball. What if the Big Bang is a theoretical impossibility of physics pure and simple, despite the observational evidence? There's only one way I know of to generate convincing impossibilities - virtual reality; a simulated universe where there need be no connection at all between what you observe and what theoretically caused the various things that you observe. My scenario: the expansion; the CMBR; the ratio of hydrogen to helium, are all simulated.

Our reality, our Universe including the Big Bang (and ultimately you) is nothing but a computer-generated program, software created by some entity, probably extraterrestrial. Having set up the parameters, it's just a matter of hitting the 'start program' key and seeing what happens. We humans have already done this sort of activity so there's nothing implausible about this possibility.

Now I've often wondered if some great extraterrestrial computer programmer specializing in generating virtual reality worlds and universes would leave enough clues to his (its) 'subjects' that they in fact were just software generated virtual beings in a simulated universe. One such type of clue would be no way those virtual creations could reconcile observation with theory, as in the case of the Big Bang.

For another example we have observations of four physical forces yet no theory which unites the three quantum forces (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force) with the one classical force - gravity. There is no viable theory of quantum gravity despite thousands of physicists searching for one over many generations now. It's like there are two sets of different software running the Universe.

One of the many Big Bang 'in the beginning' predictions of theoretical things is magnetic monopoles - magnets with either a south pole or a north pole, but not both. Alas, we've never ever found and confirmed the reality of even one monopole. So strange is that that a new concept states that the very early Universe underwent an additional oomph of very rapid inflation which so diluted the created monopoles that there are no longer any monopoles in our neck of the woods. That does appear a bit like clutching at straws.

You have a 120 order-of-magnitude (that's one followed by 120 zeros) discrepancy between the observed vacuum energy and the theoretical value of the vacuum energy.

You have particles that behave both as a wave and as little billiard balls - observed but theoretically impossible in classical physics.

Speaking of particles, there are three fundamental properties of particles (like the electron, neutrinos, the numerous quarks, etc.) and their anti-particles (like the positron). They are charge, spin and mass. Despite the relatively large number of particles (including the equal and opposite anti-particles), there are only a few allowed values for charge and spin, values pretty much confined to the infield. But, for some reason, the mass (usually expressed in equivalent energy units - Einstein's equation again) of the various particles are not only scattered throughout the ballpark but are all over the map. They take on values (albeit one value per type of particle) over many orders of magnitude without any apparent pattern or regularity or relationship between them - and nobody has the foggiest idea why, not even a validly theoretical idea. Nobody can predict from first principles what the masses should be. It's like someone just drew a few dozens of numbers out of a hat containing multi hundreds of thousands of values and assigned them to the few dozens of particles willy-nilly. Something is screwy somewhere because something so fundamental shouldn't be so anomalous.

In the real world, the macro world, the classical world, no two things are identical down to the last microscopic detail - you are unique; every bacterium is unique; every house, den, nest, and ant hill is unique; so is every baseball and grain of sand. In the unreal world, the micro world, the quantum world, all fundamental particles of their own kind (i.e. electrons or positrons or up quarks or photons) are identical to the last measurable detail. Why? Who knows! But a possibility from the simulated universe is that there is one software code or sequence of bits and bytes for each type of fundamental particle. So every time that sequence is used, you get that type of entity and only that type.

There are constant reports of physical constants that aren't - constant that is. That's totally nuts!

Then you have observations of quasars with vastly differing red-shifts (measurements of their recessional velocities) yet quasars which appear to be causality connected.

In physics, time travel to the past is theoretically possible - though damned difficult in practice. However, that means that those time travel paradoxes are possible, even likely. Paradoxes like going back in time, say ten years, and killing yourself (which is a novel way of committing suicide), means you couldn't have existed to go back in time in the first place in order to kill yourself, which means you're not dead so you can go back in time and murder yourself, etc. What kind of physics is that? Curiouser and curiouser.

Any and all miracles, Biblical or otherwise, are explainable as easily as saying "run program".

More down to earth, you have multi-observations of things like the Loch Ness Monster, those highly geometrically complex crop circles, and ghosts, yet there's no real adequate theory, pro or con, that can account for their observed existence or creation.

All up, perhaps some cosmic computer programmer/software writer whiz with a wicked sense of humour (a trickster 'god'?) is laughing its tentacles off since we haven't been able to figure it (our virtual reality) out. Of course maybe the minute we do, the fun's over and 'Dr. It' hits the delete key and that's the way the Universe ends - not with a Big Crunch, nor with a Heat Death, but with a "are you sure you want to delete this?" message! "Yes".