A little thought after seeing the planetarium « Symphony of the Universe » at Katsushika City Museum of History and Astronomy, the power of imagination and theory education
It was so much fun! (Thanks a lot, Uni-chan, for organizing it!)
The planetarium itself was magnificent and powerful, and the images were very beautiful, using the latest digital technology, and the content was also very well done.
Although the location is a bit inconvenient, this is definitely a highly recommended place to visit.
Well, I had many other thoughts while watching this « Symphony of Universes ».
First, my own memories.
I’ve loved astronomy and space since I was a child. I was fascinated by it. I read a lot of these books and illustrated books when I was young, and I attended a lot of astronomy classes in my hometown.
Therefore, the content of the film itself was fully applicable to the knowledge I had acquired as a child.
In fact, I majored in physics at university, in something called particle theory, and I was particularly interested in « quantum gravity, » so naturally I studied quantum mechanics, general relativity, and string theory (superstring theory), which is considered to be one of the candidates for a unified theory.
It’s no surprise that my choice of such a major was influenced by my astronomical education and knowledge, such as what I saw on this day as a child.
I thought I was going to fall asleep because I was getting over a cold and I was tired, but I was soaked in these memories and the fun of the film itself that I didn’t sleep at all and watched the whole thing.
You didn’t mention Einstein.
In a way, my memories are not important, but what I really want to say starts here. (Sorry for the long sentence…)
It’s about the « theoretical » aspect.
It’s not that the content of the screening was theoretically wrong or anything like that. I believe that the content was accurate and in line with our understanding of modern science.
When we talk about the modern man’s view of the universe and his perception of the universe, « Galileo » is naturally indispensable, but « Einstein » must also be indispensable.
I understand that it’s hard to touch because it’s kind of hard to explain the « theoretical » stuff…
Not much in the way of « how did we know all this? »
This facility is a museum, so there are other exhibits besides the planetarium. In the space next to the planetarium, there were exhibits about the history of the universe, the history of stars, and the history of the sun.
For example, there was a corner that explained the internal structure of the sun, and the explanation was based on a diagram like this.
The Sun is composed of a central core (solar core), radiative layer, convection layer, photosphere, chromosphere, corona, and corona. For the sake of convenience, the photosphere is considered to be the surface of the Sun because it corresponds roughly to the viewing angle when the Sun is observed from around the Earth in visible light. There is no way to optically observe the inner part of it. The solar radius is defined as the distance from the center of the Sun to the photosphere. The photosphere often contains sunspots, which are cooler than their surroundings, and plages, which are brighter areas around the sun [8]. The upper layer above the photosphere, which is more transparent to light, is called the solar atmosphere. The upper layers of the plasmasized solar atmosphere are less bound by solar gravity and therefore leak into interplanetary space. This is called the solar wind, which extends to Neptune’s orbit and is the cause of the aurora.
These explanations are the same as the ones you saw in illustrated books when you were a child.
I think it’s great that the book is written in such a way that even children can understand it properly, with authentic content and an understanding based on modern science.
But still, there are times when it doesn’t feel right.
That is, « How did you find out about all this? » That is. That explanation is nowhere to be found.
« How is it that we know the inner workings of the sun as if we’d delved into its interior, when we haven’t even flown an observatory (and probably never will)? »
Can you answer this clearly?
You can find the answer on Wikipedia, so I’ll quote it right away without wasting time.
In order to understand this « theoretical analysis » itself, you need to have knowledge of physics at the university or graduate school level, so it is very difficult for the general public to understand it.
The source of the power to « imagine » and « foretell » is, somehow, okay to tell.
It is true that this kind of theory is difficult to communicate, and some people may think that it is better not to mention it because it may confuse people depending on their way of thinking.
