The Walk Up Mount Wilson

By cjohnson | August 22, 2005 1:30 am

trip view As you know from an earlier post, I left Aspen on Friday and headed home. This involves changing planes at Denver, and then flying over the strange, beautiful, and changing landscape West to Los Angeles. It only takes about a couple of hours. I was thinking hard about our discussion about the Greatest Physics Paper! and trying to think of those forgotten examples of great work. The people who’s songs are seldom sung. The unglamourous “bread and butter” works that seldom get written up in the newspapers near the time that they are produced, if ever. These solid works are examples of what every scientist should do as a matter of course: You look at the evidence you have before you, gather more if necessary, make some assumptions, form a hypothesis, and test it against the data. Next, come to a conclusion, and report your results as clearly and honestly as you can, and so on.

Whether or not you have some vision about what it all means does not necessarily qualify or disqualify the resulting paper as a candidate for being a great paper. It can still take its place in the tapestry that is the sum of efforts of generation after generation of physicist to make sense of our world, and find its meaning there.

So I was thinking about this all, and my mind switched to some recent reading I’d been doing. Simon Singh’s excellent book, “Big Bang” had been on my bedside table recently, and although I’d not had a lot of time to read it, I was curious to dip into it from time to time. This is partly because, while I know several of the stories and the history that he tells, it is always of great value to see how another tells those stories. I always learn something, either in the facts or in the telling.

As we’d been discussing before, Einstein’s papers are modern examples of work that changed our entire view of how the universe that we inhabit is really put together. How can those fail to be top candidates for the best physics papers ever? Same thing for Newton, and for Galileo, etc.

However, it’s easy to forget that for several years after Einstein’s breakthrough with General Relativity, the world still thought that the entire universe was just the Milky Way Galaxy. It was not until the year 1923 that Edwin Hubble (in one of his many great contributions) established extremely cleanly that the Andromeda Galaxy was several times further away from the center of the Milky Way than the edge of the Milky Way itself. This was a truly shattering change of perspective about our universe’s size and variety: There were now known to be thousands of galaxies out there just like our own. Imagine what that would be like today. It would be like finding that there are thousands of other things out there that are just like the universe we live in today that we thought contained everything. That would turn so much of what we know upside down.

Now Hubble’s work was truly great, of course, and it is interesting to me that he is better remembered for “discovering that the universe expands” (he was not in fact the first to note the expansion of the universe, just the first to quantify it – Hubble’s Law. This is a very important contribution, without a doubt). To my mind, the Andromeda result is far more singular and unambiguous a discovery.

But never mind. My point is this: What was the key foundation upon which Hubble stood to find this astounding Andromeda result? Surely, everybody else had access to the information about the various galaxies (or “nebulae” as they mistakenly called them then) out there? Why did they miss something that seems so obvious to us today?

Ah, here comes one of those great pieces of “bread and butter” physics. The relatively unsung, simple, but absolutely key work of the type that I mentioned before. It was by Henrietta Leavitt, who through painstaking work gathering and analyzing data, and some key assumptions and a bold hypotheses, was able to establish a simple relationship between the average brightness of certain type of star and the rate of pulsation of its brightness. These stars, which periodically vary their brightness, are called “Cepheid variables”. In fact, Leavitt plotted a curve showing the relationship, and most such stars fall close to that curve.

So when you see one of these stars in the sky and measure its pulsing rate, you know how bright it must be. Compare that to how bright it actually is, and you know how far away it is – a whole new “metre rule” (“yardstick” for readers in the USA) of measurement. (Well, it was key that Shapley and Hertzsprung used parallax to fix the distance of a nearby one of these stars to “calibrate” the scale – another excellent piece of work.)

This was the foundation Hubble needed to make sense of the data he was gathering using the 100-inch telescope at the top of Mount Wilson, and it was this sort of less well-known solid piece of work whose existence I was mulling over when the captain of our Boeing 757 announced that we were beginning the approach to the airport. At this very point, I thought “Oh! I should be able to see Mount Wilson”, and I immediately looked out of the plane right over to Mount Wilson and could see two white dots which were probably two of the domes of the observatory. I was sure it was the right mountain since it had a few miles from its base the unmistakable landmark made by the famous Santa Anita racetrack. (Those of you who saw the film “Seabiscuit”, for example, will know a little of the history of that place.)

I am not making this up. I was thinking about Hubble’s work and did just look out upon the very instruments he used. It was magical. So you know what I had to do, of course. I had to go up there that next morning. I’d been planning to go up again sometime soon, since I’d never seen the observatory (I’d been up only once before, with a large part of USC’s Neuroscience department, but it was on such a constantly cold and foggy day that we came back down without ever looking around up there).

mount wilson So I got home, unpacked a little, did some shopping for supplies at the local Trader Joe’s (giving me an excuse to test the bike to see that it had made the return journey in good health – it had), gave my usual explanations about how the bike worked to the usual random inquisitive locals, and came back home and went to bed. The next morning saw me rise at 5:30am and get my gear (sandwich, water, nuts, fruit -the last of the Aspen peaches– , directions, boots, more water, etc) ready to get significantly high up the mountain before the sun got too hot. As it happened, I was later leaving than I intended, but I drove over to the trailhead and bent my back into the task by 7:50am. The sun was already beginning to beat down, actually, but was not yet unpleasant. It was a wonderful hike, and I was thinking about great works of physics for most of the way, and in that frame of mind found it inspiring to be going up the Old Mount Wilson trail where lots of great physicists had tread before.

trip view trip view There was so much to see, but I won’t trouble you with lots of pictures of all of the things I saw, from the wonderful shape of the mountain and the approach of the trail itself to the various flowers, trees, streams, and animals of various sorts. (See a couple on the right and left. The one above is a view of the goal from about a third of the way up.) I’ll cut to the chase. I got up there 2 hours and 45 exhilarating minutes (and 6.8 miles and 2000ft) later. The sun was hot, and I was exhausted, but I wanted to see the telescopes! So leaving lunch for later I rambled around the top of the mountain until I found them, walked around them, looked in at the observation deck of the 100-inch, looked at the smaller solar telescopes on their giant pedestals, generally soaked up the significance and history of the place – and it was great. I don’t know why. I just felt I needed to go up and see them and take a few pictures for you, in order to tell the story right.

Below are the domes containing the 60 inch and 100 inch telescopes:

60 inch dome

100 inch dome

…and this is the 100 inch telescope (yes, the one Hubble used for the Andromeda result):

100inch

Here are two views of one of the smaller instruments used for studies of the sun:

solar telescopesolar telescope

There, I’ve done it. I hope it means a little to you too. At least you now know why I was stuck on the sofa for a while again, on Saturday night.

-cvj

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Science, Travel
ADVERTISEMENT
  • brennp

    I always learn something, either in the facts or in the telling.
    nice post, thanks

  • Mostafa

    I wish all of we people in science had the energy and courage to go the same way: Think deeply of something that makes sense, and then go for it.
    But also I think the distinction between “Theory” and “Action” (or “Application” perhaps) would disappear in that condition, and I selfishly and lazily prefer this unification not to occur.

  • http://yolanda3.dynalias.org/wbpage/MH/mh.html Wolfgang

    Very nice post indeed!
    I agree that the Andromeda discovery is one of the great breakthroughs but I have to say the beauty of physics is that there is no such thing as the greatest paper; It keeps evolving.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/clifford/ Clifford

    Wolfgang. Thanks. About the greatest paper: Of course there’s no such thing. That’s not the point of the discussion. See my original post on the subject. Thanks.

    -cvj

  • http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/06/trigger.html Plato

    The terrain is always interesting when you walk to high places. From such scientific position, it is hard not to look back and assess our forbears in their work to bring us to such vistas.

    To know, that this same view includes cosmological origins of such vastness on “the lanscape.”

    Such comparisons would have been the very idea that it causes balance to be “ruffled” when you stand on the edge, of the Grand Canyon view. This is one that unsettle me, yet I appreciated the rail to hold onto, while I witness the deep groove of natural expression.

    Observatories

  • spyder

    Thank you Clifford for sharing some of those historical perspectives of science practiced by people who felt unfettered by the creationists and IDers of their day. Few people, outside the astronomy/physics community know much about the key role that the Angeles Crest and surrounding mountain ranges played in the history of science. Fewer people know that the trail you hiked, and the others in that region are some of the most dangerous in CA. Part of this is due to the numbers of ill prepared people hiking them; some to the numbers of people who drive vehicles where they don’t belong and get in trouble; and still others are due to the age of those sacred mountains. It is sad that the several observatories in and around Southern California suffer so much from light pollution, as well as the other forms. In the days of Hubble and Michelson LA County was the leading agricultural producing county in the US; still held that distinction until 1937. Made for much clearer air and dark nighttime skies.

    It is nice that Plato’s post features another most significant mountain range. The Big Horn Medicine Wheel is worthy of multi-day visits particularly over the equinox’s and summer solstice. It is really harsh during the winter solstice, unless there is a drought year and the deep polar chill hasn’t yet come down from the North. I thank Plato for sharing that and encouraging all to be out and about with these ancient and modern sites dedicated to the human understanding of our relationship with the universe. My other favorites are the astronomical sacred kivas at Chaco Canyon. Well worth a week of time, while taking in the Grand Canyon.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/clifford/ Clifford

    Spyder and Plato,

    Thanks for your thoughts on mountains and place.

    -cvj

  • http://www.cosmik-debris.net MobyDikc

    Isn’t it true that Hubble never actually believed the universe was expanding?

    That the relativists simply zealously latched onto one of the possibilities Hubble raised and his own prefered possibilities were ridiculed and eventually forgotten by the mainstream?

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/clifford/ Clifford

    Interesting point. I don’t know. I’ve not read his writings about that yet. I imagine that there is a good source out there. I’ve not read it yet. Anyone out there care to recommend a biography or other source?

    -cvj

  • http://www.cosmik-debris.net MobyDikc

    “if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principle of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results” (E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936.)

    “[If the redshifts are a Doppler shift] … the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time.” (Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices, 17, 506, 1937).

    As far as I know, Hubble never believed in exapansion. He thought it was dumb.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/clifford/ Clifford

    Wow. I did not know that! Thanks. Wll try to cross-link this with the “Greatest Physics Paper!” discussion.

    -cvj

  • http://www.cosmik-debris.net MobyDikc

    I took a look at your homepage. You say:

    “My research interests are mainly concerned with the development of theoretical tools for the description of the basic fabric of Nature.”

    I’m inclined to ask, how many basic underlies assumptions have you challenged?

    I’m interested in the very same topics: is there something fundamental we’re doing wrong in our theories?

    I’ve developed my approach using non-equation-based mathematics which abandons the static universe of special relativity and requires a novel approach to deriving predictions from the model.

    I’m wondering if in all your research you’ve heard anyone anywhere ever say something like:

    Maybe our models themselves are not only wrong, but so is the method by which we derive predictions from them.

    ?

  • Jim

    I live in Los Angeles and I go up to Mount Wilson once a year in the winter for some intense stargazing with my starcharts and binoculars. It’s beautiful up there, very cold when I go, but beautiful. Thanks for the great post!

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/clifford/ Clifford

    MobyDikc: Answers: Several; Yes.

    Thanks for asking.

    Cheers,

    -cvj

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/clifford/ Clifford

    Jim: Hi! It’s just a great mountain. What you describe is just a great thing to do. I used to stargaze a lot when I was younger: with binoculars, then a rather terrible telescope that I made, and sometimes accompaneid by star charts…. But I used to do it in a lot warmer climate than a mountaintop in Southern California in the wintertime. But it must be a great thing to do every year….I had a bad habit of just going and seeing that my favourite things were there, so I never really learned the sky very well when I was young, as I should have. Are you one of those people who can identify very many objects by name, constellation, etc…? This is where I end up being rather embarrased at all the amatuer astronomy parties.

    -cvj

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/clifford/ Clifford

    MobyDikc: Slightly longer answer on the first. Yes. I would say assumptions are challlenged every day. It might be just little ones – not like “What if everyone this century is just plain wrong!? The fools!! Wait until they see this!!” – but more like “How about I don’t assume that this system has this property, what happens then? Do my basic equations still follow? Or maybe there are new pieces to the equations that I had not thought of….I might have more solutions then…..Hmmm”.

    That’s more akin to the day-to-day of assumption-challenging that goes on in the theorist’s office, or on the bus, or in the cafe, or last thing at the bedside table before switching off the light (yes, I’m afraid so – It’s hard to turn off a theoretical physicist*).

    Cheers,

    -cvj

    * Of course I mean “make them stop working on their physics problems”. Come on, stop giggling:…this is a family show folks…

  • Pingback: A Significant Meeting | Cosmic Variance()

  • Pingback: Centauri Dreams » Blog Archive » Hubble, Einstein and a Day to Remember()

  • Pingback: The Other Office | Cosmic Variance()

  • Pingback: The Sermon | Cosmic Variance()

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Cosmic Variance

Random samplings from a universe of ideas.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+