Thursday, May 1, 2008

Sun's astrophysicist...John N. Bahcall

John N. Bahcall
1934-2005

"IAS's John N. Bahcall Probes the Lightweight Universe"


Science Watch

Ray Davis and John Bahcall

With his many contributions to neutrino astrophysics, John N. Bahcall has played a major part in opening a window on the universe. Thirty years ago Ray Davis, then working at Brookhaven National Laboratory and now at the University of Pennsylvania, suggested that it might be possible to detect neutrinos from the sun as a result of Bahcall's calculations on solar nuclear reactions. The unambiguous detection of these neutrinos directly verified the hypothesis that nuclear reactions generate stellar energy.
A physicist with a deep interest in neutrino production in the universe, Bahcall graduated in physics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1956. A master's from the University of Chicago followed a year later. For his doctorate, he was supervised by David Layzer of Harvard University, and after a postdoctoral position at Indiana University he moved to Caltech. Bahcall's interest in neutrinos was sparked early in his academic career. At Indiana he attended lectures given by Emil Kanapenski on weak interaction theory. As a self-imposed exercise for the student, he calculated some reaction rates. Later, an astronomer pointed him to the paper on cosmic nucleosynthesis by Margaret Burbidge, Geoffrey Burbidge, Willie Fowler, and Fred Hoyle (E.M. Burbidge, et al., Rev. Mod. Phys., 29:547, 1957). When Bahcall read the appendix, he saw that laboratory reaction rates had been used for beta decay in stellar interiors, but from his own calculations on beta decay he realized that the rates in stars would be very different from those in the laboratory. Since 1970 Bahcall has been an astrophysicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. His interests range much more widely than studies of solar neutrinos, and include the search for dark matter in the universe and models of the galaxy. Most recently he has taken a leading role in applying the Hubble Space Telescope to studies of quasars. At a recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society, both Bahcall and Davis received prizes for their work on solar neutrinos, and Bahcall spoke to Science Watch's Physics correspondent Simon Mitton about his work in neutrino astrophysics.

SW: Your association with Willie Fowler, who died recently, was a long and fruitful one. How did that arise?


Bahcall: I wrote a short paper saying that the weak interaction rates being used by astrophysicists could not be correct because the laboratory rates would be changed in stars: ionization and the Pauli principle would play an effect at the high densities inside stars. Willie Fowler was the referee for that, and he was always very generous when there was a new idea. He invited me to the Kellogg Radiation Laboratory at Caltech to continue my work on weak interactions. At the same time Fowler wrote to Ray Davis saying I'd done some interesting calculations relevant to nuclear reactions in the sun. Ray expressed an interest in the rates for electron capture by 7Be, saying that he would love to build a detector for the neutrinos produced by the 7Be. Fowler encouraged me to work on this, and for the last 33 years Ray and I have been interacting more or less continuously.


SW: Throughout your period of collaboration with Ray Davis, the story of solar neutrino hunting has been one of the observed flux lagging the predicted rate, with the observed rates one-half or less than predicted. Your two most highly cited papers in Reviews of Modern Physics—on the solar models and neutrino rates—have recorded more than 700 citations between them, which is high for physical sciences papers. What have we learned about neutrino astronomy from the research sparked by these papers?


Bahcall: On a primitive level we've got a very fundamental result: we've confirmed experimentally that the sun shines by burning nuclear material in its core! This resolved a controversy that goes back to the middle of the 19th century. Advances in geology had shown the great age of Earth and raised the question for astronomers of how the sun could generate energy for millions of years. Eddington, in the early part of the 20th century, suggested that nuclear fusion is the source of that energy, but it took another 20 years before Hans Bethe developed fully the theory of nuclear reactions inside the sun. Ray confirmed this theory with his famous chlorine experiment conducted deep underground in Lead, South Dakota, in which a few atoms of 37Ar are produced each month when a 37Cl atom captures a solar neutrino.
Today, three further experiments have detected neutrinos, and there is no doubt that they come from the sun. In the Kamiokande experiment (Japan), neutrino-electron scattering occurs. The Cerenkov light from scattered electrons shows that the high-energy 8B neutrinos causing the scattering have come from the direction of the sun. Two gallium experiments, GALLEX (Italy) and SAGE (Russia), detect the low-energy neutrinos from the basic proton-proton fusion reaction. These use absorption of a neutrino by 71Ga to produce 71Ge and an electron. The neutrino flux is measured to an accuracy of about 10%. So all four experiments detect solar neutrinos. The measured flux is the same as the predictions to within a factor of about 2-4 too little, depending on the experiment, and their energies are exactly what we expect from the theory. The data are specifically in agreement with the idea that the sun shines by burning four protons to form 4He, emitting two neutrinos in the cycle. This is in contrast with the reactions Hans Bethe thought were dominant, in which C, N, and O nuclei catalyze the four protons. So we've learned that reactions among the lightest nuclei alone keep dwarf stars like the sun shining. The interest shown in my 1982 and 1988 papers shows what a tremendous achievement it has been for a huge community of physicists, engineers, chemists, and astrophysicists—hundreds of people—to demonstrate what goes on deep inside stars. We've answered the question of how the stars shine and evolve.

SW:Your solar modeling work tries to reconcile theory and experiment, and in the course of this you have taken an interest in helioseismology, which aims to probe the solar interior by analyzing the oscillations of the sun's outer layers.


Bahcall: I've written a series of papers in which the goal is to calculate as precisely as possible the conditions in the solar interior. We successfully refined these models so we now get detailed agreement with the helioseismological frequencies, maybe 10,000 of which are known very accurately. So we now know what makes the sun tick much better than we did early on.


SW: All this progress cannot conceal the fact that astrophysicists still refer to the "solar neutrino problem."


Bahcall: Actually there are three solar neutrino problems. First, the classic one involving Ray's chlorine experiment, which has existed for two decades, in which there is a discrepancy between predicted and measured fluxes. Second, the water experiment at Kamiokande is apparently measuring the same thing as Ray—rare high-energy 8B solar neutrinos—but at different threshold energies, and they get different answers by nearly a factor of 2. The two experiments are ostensibly measuring the same process if the standard electroweak theory is correct. This "second" solar neutrino problem is independent of most of the uncertainties in astrophysics and nuclear physics. The third problem is that the gallium experiments are inconsistent with the robust predictions of the standard solar model for the flux of 7Be neutrinos. The dilemma is that either the chlorine or water experiment is wrong, and both of the gallium experiments are wrong, or we need new physics.


SW: This work is part of a long tradition in astrophysics whereby discoveries in the cosmos have informed physical theory. To what extent has the solar neutrino problem contributed to physics?


Bahcall: Neither Ray nor I had a vision that looking at a beam of neutrinos from an object 1011m away would teach us new physics. The two most popular mechanisms for explaining the solar neutrino problem via new physics are vacuum neutrino oscillations and matter-enhanced neutrino oscillations. Vladimir Gribov and Bruno Pontecorvo suggested that some sort of schizophrenia between the three neutrino types—electron, muon, and tau—on the long trip from the sun might mean that they switched to mainly muon or tau types by the time they got to Earth. That theory attracted a minority of particle physicists for a time.
For the matter-enhanced oscillations we need a natural extension to the simplest version of standard electroweak theory. According to this explanation, some electron neutrinos are transformed into muon or tau neutrinos as a result of their interaction with electrons in the sun. Non-zero neutrino masses are required for this effect: theory and all experiments are reconciled with an electron neutrino mass of about 0.003 eV.

SW: Is the end in sight for the classical solar neutrino problem?


Bahcall: Four new solar neutrino experiments now under construction will soon test the proposition that new physics is needed. The Superkamiokande and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory should be operational next year, and will have counting rates two orders of magnitude higher than the four pioneering experiments. Another experiment, being developed at CERN in Geneva, will look at the shape of the energy spectrum of 8B solar neutrinos, and this will tell us whether oscillations are taking place.
My guess is that as a result of these experiments we will get directed in more specific ranges, but I don't think that it will be possible before the end of the century to say that there is a unique particle physics solution to solar neutrino problems. My hunch is that in the next five years or so it will be likely one of the several proposed particle physics solutions will emerge as the selected one. But there is sufficient richness in the imagination of our particle theorist friends that the number of particle physics solutions far exceeds the number of funded experiments! More than half of those scientists presently in the field incline to the matter-induced oscillations, but to focus on the solution with the rigor that is required will take more than the current generation of experiments but we might be lucky.

SW: A good example of astronomer's luck was the supernova explosion in the Large Magellanic Cloud in 1987, which led to the detection of neutrinos from beyond our galaxy. How do you see neutrino astronomy developing generally?


Bahcall: One active area with a lot of experiments is the study of atmospheric neutrinos, which has puzzles of its own. There is no doubt that at the very high energies at which cosmic rays come in they are producing neutrino secondaries. That too has interesting physics and will be active in the next decade. Beyond that there is true neutrino astronomy where we're looking for neutrinos in our galaxy and beyond. There are new experiments at the South Pole, under the ocean in Hawaii, and planned for under the sea near Greece, where people will be taking the first steps towards detecting on a regular basis neutrinos from other astronomical systems. We hope this will teach us about astronomical systems that are very different from those we see with photons: neutrinos come from very different regions to photons and they don't have the same difficulties in escaping from stars. I think these experiments are very promising. The first generation of these experiments will be operating in the next two to three years. Although they might not detect neutrinos from outside the solar system, the next generation will have much larger versions of the current experiments and I am hopeful we will then have extragalactic neutrino astronomy.


Princeton University obituary:

"Eminent astrophysicist John Bahcall dies at 70"

by

Eric Quiñones

August 18, 2005

John Bahcall, a renowned astrophysicist and faculty member of the Institute for Advanced Study who also was a visiting lecturer with rank of professor at Princeton, died Wednesday, Aug. 17, in New York City. He was 70.
Bahcall, the Richard Black Professor of Astrophysics in the School of Natural Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study, had a long and prolific career in astronomy and astrophysics. His work spanned five decades and included the publication of more than 500 technical papers, books and popular articles. His distinguished career included numerous honors and awards, including the National Medal of Science. In 1971, the same year Bahcall joined the institute as a permanent faculty member, he also accepted a continuing appointment as visiting lecturer at Princeton, where he served as an important link between the two institutions and fostered cooperation and coordination between their faculties. "John Bahcall worked closely and effectively with the University for over three decades to develop the community of Princeton astronomers and astrophysicists, both at the University and the institute, into one of the strongest and most vigorous in the world," said Scott Tremaine, chair of Princeton's Department of Astrophysical Sciences. "John strengthened our department at every level, from supervising undergraduate and graduate students in research projects to helping to identify and recruit senior faculty, and as a result I and my predecessors were in contact with him on an almost daily basis," Tremaine said. "John was also the astronomy community's most effective and prolific talent scout -- over half of the faculty members in our department were hired by him early in their careers, and I'm sure the same remarkable statistic is true of many of the best astronomy departments in the country." Bahcall is survived by his wife Neta Bahcall, a professor of astrophysics at Princeton; sons Safi and Dan; daughter Orli; and brother Robert.

Solo and co-authored papers:


arXiv

And...


An Iron Core For The Sun And More?



Echo 1

In a few weeks will be an historical benchmark--the launch of Echo 1. May 13th, 1960 marks the date of the first passive telecommunication satellite launched by a Delta rocket. This simple balloon-like satellite some 90 feet in diameter was made of mylar polyester film 0.0127 mm thick and lasted a little over eight years. Many a summer night yielded, without the aid of optical instruments, it's trek across the night sky.

Gunter's Space Page

Blue Moon

In all these years I cannot recall seeing a "blue moon". Of course the moon is not really blue, but it can adorn the appearance of blueness [and other colors]--all based on the particulate matter dispersed in the atmosphere such as volcanic eruptions or forest fires. Well, linguistics and science are at play here and from a linguistic perspective it is rare and thus the coined term "a blue moon"--generically, something [an event] happening rarely. But, it still could be a physical phenomena of a moon appearing "blue" in color.

Blue Moon

Blue Moon



Cool moon map...

Vatican Astronomy

The Vatican has other interests too--astronomy and a rare book collection.

Castel Gandolfo
Italy


Zeiss Double Astrograph

Schmidt Telescope

And in conjunction with the Mount Graham International Observatory in southeastern Arizona forming the Vatican Observatory Research Group [VORG]. The Graham facility uses the Alice P. Lennon Telescope [Steward Observatory]. The whole group along with the Thomas J. Bannan Astrophysics Facility forms the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope [VATT].

Steward Observatory

Alice P. Lennon Telescope
Steward Observatory

Elements

by

Euclid

Works

by

Archimedes

Almagest

by

Ptolemy


Cleanliness...

Cleanliness in space and materials and samples brought back is a critical aspect of space exploration. Being responsible travelers and explorers in space we don't want to contaminate alien environments. And we certainly don't want any contamination of the samples that are returned to Earth for analysis. If we are careless there, then the whole value of any mission would be worthless: Bad data and false conclusions including the time and costs of the mission. Thus great effort has been made to make our trips of humans, probes, tools, collection apparatus, etc. as contamination free as possible. Think back to Robert Wise's 1971 film "The Andromeda Strain" when the selected investigation crew had to endure hours of decontamination of their bodies to enter a safe area to scientifically discover the deadly alien biological anomaly that occurred on the surface and the attempts to isolate the only two survivors in an environment free of contamination. And as current and real as of the 9th of September when the Genesis probe will return to Earth loaded with solar dust; the containment of the samples will be placed in the highest contamination environment possible: "Genesis is the first NASA mission to develop a class 10 cleanroom (only 10 particles of contaminant per cubic meter)." And the situation works the other way: Squeaky clean items placed in space are desired and accidents do happen. On April 20, 1967 the Surveyor 3 spacecraft landed on the moon with a strain of Streptococcus mitis on board. The bacteria is common and harmless: Someone must have sneezed and there was a breech in the quest for a "zero contamination" assembly environment. The freeloader was discovered when in 1969 the Apollo 12 astronauts retrieved a sample of some circuit board insulation and brought it home for analysis. Now the bacteria was free-dried on the Moon's surface but rebounded back on Earth. Maybe no harm done on the Moon, but extra care must be exercised when visiting systems that would sustain any bacteria and allow reproduction. As a matter of fact, many scientists don't think a "zero contamination" system is possible. Consider also that contamination can be inorganic. And from an epistemological perspective, data received from contaminated materials is always suspect. The recent Genesis crash is a prime example. Certification of the purity of samples is nearly impossible.


Science, Philosophy, Religion...the best?


Science, philosophy, religion which one has helped humankind more. All have hurt us in some sense and all have helped in others.

Early mankind was able to explain the environment/universe in terms of mythology--there was no discipline of philosophy and science. Sophisticated or not , early man was able to predict periodic events through seasonal events and astronomical phenomenon such as the correct time to hunt certain species in migration, to plant/harvest crops, or to predict the rainy/drought seasons. Religion has lost much of its global influence now which is to say that it is not significant. There would be no science without the rigors of philosophy and the basic framework of the scientific method and exact use of logical methodology. Philosophy provides an accurate framework for all of the science and thus would reign supreme.

I'll grant you current philosophy is not in the old tradition of Plato or Jean-Paul Sartre. No more are there grand scale philosophies even though there are many minor ones underfoot and thriving such as Karl Popper’s Critical Realism. Nevertheless, the disciplines of science and even theology are dependent upon all aspects of philosophical endeavors: Scientific methodology, logic, linguistics.

Religion/theology too has changed in many respects despite the old hard-line religions entrenched bias. People are not murdered for sacrilegious stances or heretical philosophy. Toleration, general clean-up, and new specialized [humanistic] faiths have been established. Religious ethics is quite strong. Multiple gender roles in religious infrastructure is more common.

Science doesn't cause wars, but you have to admit that science certainly has tipped the balance of victory for many countries. These are two of many salient example: The introduction of the ‘longbow’ [remember the decisive battle of Agincourt in 1415 where the English killed 7,000 to 10,000 French] and the introduction of tanks and the machine gun during World War I: Mobility and rapid, impersonal nature of killing. Science/technology were very effective in both cases. To the “political and economic” list add "psychological" in that individuals [assorted despots] and institutions [mostly religious] must augment their agendas. "Power and greed" rule.



Science and Government

The "Information Awareness Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense"--if you can say that five times, the government will have already looked down your throat, up your...birth certificate, checked your face, your iris, analyzed your gait, and stored ALL your Internet activity. Technology geared for "home protection"--and other things? Just how far reaching is this agency? Is privacy a mere memory? Is "Scientia Est Potentia" to mean "Science Has Potential" or "Knowledge Is Power"? Now we will all be paranoid. Pass the Prozac please.

Here's a two part question:

1.) Should science be a part of any government: Have a major role in policy formations or should science take a more shadowy role in government policies offering just technical advise and supplying nothing but technological achievements? If so, in what ways.

2.) Do you envision a totally scientific oriented government in the future: A "technocratic" governmental institution establishing all rules and regulations of mankind and man's exploration of space. If so, list some areas that science would become involved such as ethics, religion, education, a division of labor, a society of pure contemplation, laws, genetic engineering. Would mankind lose "freedom"? Would it be for the best of man? Technocratic societies like Fritz Lang's Metropolis, the Atlantis myth, George Orwell's 1984, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, or Eugene Zamathian's We--just myths and fantasy or is mankind heading towards something revolutionary?

When I started thinking about this topic, my first thought was: "This is impossible, mankind is a complex system and cannot be controlled" - this is a biased thought of someone who lives in a democratic country. But thinking a bit more, I see that we have examples of many systems [not only governmental, but also spiritual and even the "media industry"] which "control" human beings. I believe that actually none of us is completely free. But the ones who are living in a democracy, have the right to choose who will "control" them [science, faith, government, fashion, etc.], using the individual free-will.

Science does play an important role in any government that wishes progress [and why not include "money" as well], but maybe it should not have a major role in policy formations in a democracy. Science works quite well with "nature" but I am not sure if it would have the same effect on "people". It is known that it is not easy to govern a country with so much different people, faiths, customs. I do not believe that the objective nature of science would "control" all the variables [In my opinion Philosophy would play a better role on that than science would]. Science could give its support to the government by its notions of ethics, methodology, lack of speculations, accurate results [science how it should be, not how it is now].

If a technocratic governmental institution be established somewhere, some people would adapt well, and they would not think that they are losing their "freedom" in any way - perhaps the scientists... who knows. But since it is an imposed system, of course many people would try to fight against it - the technosociety would apply "behavior formulae" to mankind [uh... maybe "greed = money² x wealth / compassion" (ugh... quantification of greed!)].

Maybe we need to take another look at the structure of this society [or any society] with a ruling body be it a monarchy, dictatorship, democracy, republic, etc. Those ruling bodies do have a specific say in the control of a society--many by social consensus. It is an agreed upon set of rules or methodology to control certain aspects of a society. Some are as simple as a set of traffic regulations or as barbaric with the loss of a limb for stealing a loaf of bread--and many more complex examples. Some aren't fair and much abuse occurs. Nevertheless, science does infiltrate these structures. Take for example the automotive industry and safety or the pharmaceutical industry. Automobiles are more efficient and safe through government regulation. Pharmaceuticals are, in general, safe due to high standards of the Federal Drug Administration and additional laws prohibiting false advertising and quackery. But, how would it be for a whole society to be operating on a scientific basis. Who would establish the protocol and rules of ethics? Remember the story line of a movie called Soylent Green? There, when a person reached a certain age, they were terminated--and became food. Science promoting a set of ethics whereby age is a liability for the good of a society.


OVERVIEW OF THE INFORMATION AWARENESS OFFICE