Profile

Cover photo
Ethan Siegel
Works at NASA's The Space Place
Attended University of Florida College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Lived in Bronx, New York
44,874 followers|2,809,685 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
“[C]ould you ever see what we know about the universe being upended that we find a different explanation for the cmb or could something happen to make us think we were wrong and misunderstood the red shifts of galaxies or the Doppler effect and that we actually are in a steady state or static universe?”

If there's one thing you can be certain of when it comes to the fundamental, scientific truths of our Universe, it's this: someday, in the not too distant future, those truths will be superseded by more fundamental ones. And even those, quite likely, won't be the final truths, but just one step further along the line towards our understanding of reality. Does this mean that we've necessarily got it all wrong, and that we might just as well ignore the successes of our best theories so far? Does it mean that all we know about the Universe could easily be upended and replaced, leading to vastly different conclusions to questions like where everything came from? These are exceedingly unlikely, for a myriad of reasons. Instead, this is what the next major scientific revolution will probably look like.
Could everything we’ve put together about science turn out to be wrong?
61
23
Caro Mahler's profile photoKam-Yung Soh's profile photoLissi Stark's profile photoOmar Shareef's profile photo
25 comments
 
+Christopher berg II
Soul? Lol. 
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
"[T]he Universe starts off with hydrogen and helium, all stars produce helium, and then stars over a certain mass threshold produce carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and lots of heavier elements. But carbon was already element #6; what about lithium, beryllium and boron (elements #3, #4 and #5)?"

From helium up through uranium continuously, every element in the periodic table can be found, created by natural processes, somewhere in the Universe. (With many trans-uranic nuclides found as well.) Yet out of all of those, only three of them aren't created in stars: lithium, beryllium and boron. Boron in particular is necessary for life as we know it, as without it, there would be no such things as plants. Here's the cosmic story of the only three heavy elements to exist that aren't made in stars.
Immediately after the Big Bang, before the first stars in the Universe ever formed, the Universe consisted of hydrogen (element #1), helium (element #2), and pretty much nothing else. Despite originating from an incredibly hot, dense state, arbitrarily heavy elements weren't created early on the same way they're made today in [...]
56
15
Relu Dumitru's profile photoBindu Suresh's profile photoOmar Shareef's profile photoRichard Burrows's profile photo
33 comments
 
+420RidetheLightning this is a theory of density. And I have equations and papers on the site to describe and show how a theory of density. No it is not exact. It is a series of ratios and changes applied upon each boson.

Equation in written form.

Energy of the current baryon is equal to the previous baryon energy plus changes in magnetic field, electric force, density oscillation, temperature.

That above is the current major equation to replace e=mc ^2 for obvious reasons.

There is no curvature of time or space, those are errors of working a 2d space in 3d universe. The time issue is resolved by the Zeeman effect and proves time does not bend in the way it was previously described.

There is a bit of bad foundational math that must be worked out of physics
Aaron
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Information doesn’t always travel at the speed of light, though — depending on the environment that the information is traveling through, and the form of that information (which is not always light), the speed of information can proceed at speeds that are much slower than the speed of light. The speed of light in a vacuum seems to be a hard upper limit that nothing can surpass, but if your information is in the form of a compression wave, like sound, then the information travels at the speed of sound in that medium."

There’s something puzzling about black holes, if you stop to consider it. On the one hand, they’re objects so massive and dense — compacted into such a small region of space — that nothing can escape from it, not even light. That’s the definition of a black hole, and why “black” is in the name. But gravity also moves at the speed of light, and yet the gravitational influence of a black hole has absolutely no problem extending not only beyond the event horizon, but infinite distances out into the abyss of space. Jillian Scudder has the answer to this puzzling conundrum!
If it only moves at the speed of light, and light can’t escape, how can gravity?
63
17
Sanjeev Kumar's profile photoWolverina Pagan's profile photoAbby Hyde's profile photoCons Bulaquena's profile photo
14 comments
 
Gravitons don't exist. They have not been found at any of the great labs. I write a disproof of gravity. Here is a video of a nice man explaining that paper.
http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-person-describing-my-paper-disproof.html
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
“Ever since I was a child I have had this instinctive urge for expansion and growth. To me, the function and duty of a quality human being is the sincere and honest development of one’s potential.” -Bruce Lee

Stop-motion karate dueling is the most epic thing you've seen since you first discovered Mortal Kombat's fatalities!
From novice to mastery, one frame at a time.
22
4
Jim Donegan's profile photoCarlos Velazco's profile photomarcus oh's profile photoCarlos Cortes's profile photo
 
You need to work on it.
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
"[T]he latest issue of Discover magazine has a long article on the “radical” theory of MOND and how its predictive power is excellent whereas anyone has yet to find even a trace of Dark Matter. My question is this: What is MOND? Is it a legitimate theory? If it is so successful, why do we only hear of Dark Matter and not MOND?"

When we look out at the galaxies in the Universe, watching how they rotate, we find that the starlight we see is woefully insufficient to explain why the galaxies move as they do. In fact, even if we add in the gas, dust, and all the known matter, it doesn’t add up. Normally, we talk about dark matter as the only viable solution, but it turns out that MOND, or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, is actually superior at explaining galactic rotation to dark matter. Could it be the solution to the “missing mass” (or “missing light”) problem? A look at the full suite of cosmological evidence reveals the answer, and sets out definitive challenges for MOND to overcome.
Is it possible that our problems indicate a flaw in the theory of gravity?
47
13
Diyadin Can's profile photoMoshe Vardi's profile photoOmar Shareef's profile photoChris Lidyard's profile photo
37 comments
 
+R K   Even an insight base theory must make assumptions... it must satisfy the same set of constraints... that is the scientific method and there's no way around it
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Eventually, if this neutral gas gets dense enough, it should form the most elusive of all classes of stars: Population III stars, which to date, have only been theorized. Unlike super metal-rich stars like our Sun (Population I), which have seen many, many generations of stars form before, or metal-poor (Population II) stars, found in the halos of galaxies and in very young galaxies, where only a few generations of stars have lived-and-died before, these stars should be formed out of the gas left over from the Big Bang and nothing else."

When we look out into the Universe, farther back to greater distances, we’re also looking back in time, farther and farther into the past. If we could look back far enough, close enough to the Big Bang, we’d be able to see the very first stars ever formed in the Universe: stars formed from the Big Bang’s leftover material itself. We’d never been able to find these before, but by looking at a starburst galaxy at extremely high redshifts, and measuring its signature spectroscopically, we were able to find strong evidence of hydrogen and helium, but none of carbon, oxygen, or any of the other “first-processed” elements we’d expect had we formed stars before. Here's why we think we've finally found the first true sample of Population III stars, with an actual exclusive interview with the lead scientist who made the discovery.
We’ve only ever seen 2nd-generation stars and later. Until, just maybe, now.
19
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
44,874 people
David Berger's profile photo
victor lozano's profile photo
David Hidding's profile photo
Suzanne Ashley's profile photo
Isaac Kuo's profile photo
Johnny Bojorquez's profile photo
Jhonny Ramirez's profile photo
Mohammad .Rahmat's profile photo
Roxanne Bisbee Roxee's profile photo

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
“[T]he simplest explanation is that different elements and compounds have different characteristic emission lines. For example, if you take some sodium and heat it up, it emits a characteristic yellow glow, because of its two very narrow emission lines at 588 and 589 nanometers. (You’re probably familiar with them from sodium street lamps.)

We have a great variety of elements and compounds that emit a great variety of colors! Different compounds of Barium, Sodium, Copper and Strontium can produce colors covering a huge range of the visible spectrum, and the different compounds inserted in the fireworks’ stars are responsible for everything we see.”

There are few things as closely associated with American independence as our willingness and eagerness to celebrate with fiery explosions. I refer, of course, to the unique spectacle of fireworks, first developed nearly a millennium ago halfway across the world. But these displays don’t happen by themselves; there’s an intricate art and science required to deliver the shows we all expect. So what’s the science behind fireworks? Here's the physics (and a little chemistry) behind their height, size, shape, color and sound, just in time for July 4th!
The anatomy and science of what’s required for such a spectacular show.
11
5
Omar Shareef's profile photoAjai Mani Tripathi's profile photo
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
“Venus’ upper atmosphere may well turn out to be the most Earth-like environment in the Solar System beyond our own world. In fact, there are speculations that Venus’ upper atmosphere — at these altitudes — may in fact harbor life right now!

If we could bring our own sources of sustainable food, engineer solar panels to harvest the (considerably more intense than on Earth) energy from the Sun while protecting them from the sulfuric acid conditions, we would have everything we need to build our own floating civilization above the surface of Venus.”

When we talk about humans existing on worlds other than Earth, the first choice of a planet to do so on is usually Mars, a world that may have been extremely Earth-like for the first billion years of our Solar System or so. Perhaps, with enough ingenuity and resources, we could terraform it to be more like Earth is today. But the most Earth-like conditions in the Solar System don't occur on the surface of Mars, but rather in the high altitudes of Venus' atmosphere, some 50-65 km up. Despite its harsh conditions, this may be the best location for the first human colonies, for a myriad of good, scientific reasons.
The first human colonies might not be on the surface of Mars, but amidst the clouds of Venus.
20
4
João de Lourenço's profile photoEugene Hayes's profile photoSan T's profile photoKam-Yung Soh's profile photo
 
Oh to have my own dirigible floating around Venus that could sustain life without ever having to land.  

Edit:  Spookily, I wrote that before I clicked the link and saw exactly what I imagined. 
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
"But whereas Earth’s thin atmosphere and distance from the Sun allows for liquid water on our planet’s surface, Venus’ carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid atmosphere, 90 times as thick as Earth’s and covered in constant layers of clouds, has become a cosmic oven."

Of all the worlds in our Solar System, Venus is perhaps the most like Earth. It’s the closest to us in size, in mass, in orbit, and in elemental content. The biggest difference, of course, is Venus’ atmosphere. Over 90 times as thick as Earth’s and composed of carbon dioxide and thick sulfuric acid clouds, the surface of Venus is at a constant 465C (870 F), making it the hottest planet in the Solar System. Yet we’ve both landed on the surface and imaged the entire world through its clouds, finding out exactly what the Venusian surface looks like. Come learn what you're looking at in advance of Tuesday evening's big conjunction!
Discovering the face of Earth’s sister planet, Venus, beneath its cloudy veil.
9
David Andrews's profile photo
 
Wow! 
Some of those surface features, volcanoes I presume are massive!
Some great images I had never seen.
A virtual twin of Earth, two big differences - 
A smothering atmosphere, and no Moon.
Connected perhaps?

I wonder what effect having half of the primordial atmosphere blasted away in a collision with a Mars sized body might have on a planet about this size... :)
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
"It always fascinates me that the Milky Way is one of the least understood galaxies around, because our very presence within it prevents us from mapping it well. Just like you could never know your own eye color if it weren’t for reflective surfaces, photographs or other people telling you what it was, the fact that we’re inside the Milky Way itself works against us in tremendous ways."

Also: finding signs of life on exoplanets, how static electricity works, finding the first stars in the Universe and... who would win a battle royale among Disney princesses? My vote is for Merida, but I wouldn't put it past Mulan or Belle (!) to pull it off!
“We are a singularity that makes music out of noise because we must hurry. We make a harvest of loneliness and desiring in the blank wasteland of the cosmos.” -Jack Gilbert This past week at Starts With A Bang saw five new stories about the Universe, from our own home planet to topics about the birth of…
45
7
MiracleSeeker's profile photoMicheal May's profile photoTed Welles's profile photoollie niz's profile photo
7 comments
 
+Meh To Well, rice is sorta chinese;-D
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
"For centuries, it has been assumed that such contact charging derives from the spatially homogeneous material properties (along the material’s surface) and that within a given pair of materials, one charges uniformly positively and the other negatively. We demonstrate that this picture of contact charging is incorrect."

As one of the oldest known physical phenomena, static electricity was thought to be super simple: rub two objects together, one becomes positive and the other negative, and off you go! Only, that's not how it works at all, and we only discovered the truth in 2011. Happy Throwback Thursday, everyone.
Add static electricity to the long list of things we thought we understood, but didn’t.
30
7
Alex Vozny's profile photoKam-Yung Soh's profile photoEugene Hayes's profile photoCassio Production's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Steven Rose Heidi was an awesome E&M prof. She was also one of the only physics profs at NU who was, you know, like a normal person to interact with. She had a good video a few years ago about why working in HEP was awesome.

Woah, google-fu, I just found it on my first cursory search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UxBFWPJKeI
Add a comment...

Ethan Siegel

Shared publicly  - 
 
Exoplanets and the seartch for habitable sowlrds. Live-blog and talk complete! #piCONVERGE
Catch MIT scientist Sara Seager take you to the cutting edge and into the future, with a live blog (plus commentary) rig…
11
1
Hector Hernandez's profile photo
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
44,874 people
David Berger's profile photo
victor lozano's profile photo
David Hidding's profile photo
Suzanne Ashley's profile photo
Isaac Kuo's profile photo
Johnny Bojorquez's profile photo
Jhonny Ramirez's profile photo
Mohammad .Rahmat's profile photo
Roxanne Bisbee Roxee's profile photo
Work
Occupation
Theoretical Astrophysicist / Writer / Educator
Employment
  • NASA's The Space Place
    Columnist, 2013 - present
  • Trap!t
    Head Editor: Science/Health, 2011 - present
  • Starts With A Bang!
    Science Writer, 2008 - present
  • Lewis & Clark College
    Visiting Assistant Professor of Physics, 2009 - 2011
  • University of Portland
    Professor/Lab Coordinator, 2008 - 2009
  • Steward Observatory/University of Arizona
    Postdoctoral Research Associate, 2007 - 2008
  • University of Wisconsin
    Faculty Assistant, 2006 - 2007
  • University of Florida
    Teaching/Research Assistant, Fellow, 2001 - 2006
  • King/Drew Medical Magnet High School
    Teacher, 2000 - 2001
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Previously
Bronx, New York - Yonkers, New York - Evanston, Illinois - Torrance, California - Gainesville, Florida - Madison, Wisconsin - Tucson, Arizona - Portland, Oregon - Houston, Texas - Rome, Italy
Links
Contributor to
Story
Tagline
Science writer, professor and theoretical astrophysicist
Introduction
Theoretical Astrophysicist, Science Writer and Communicator, expert in (some aspects of) dark matter and dark energy, physical cosmology, and sometimes professor, teacher and educator.

Creator and writer of Starts With A Bang!, the 2010 Physics Blog of the Year! Author of over 1,000 articles, featured in Esquire, the St. Petersburg Times, ESPN.com's Page 2, and many others.

Competitive beardsman and amateur acrobat / halloween-costumer extraordinaire.
Education
  • University of Florida College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
    Physics, 2001 - 2006
  • Northwestern University
    Physics, Classics, Integrated Science Program, 1996 - 2000
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Relationship
Married