IOS Extra: dark matter and science & architecture

Why does ‘dark matter’ matter? Do we need ‘dark energy’ to make models of the universe work? Can better buildings really lead to better science?

These were the topics discussed in the second edition of our regular series of science podcasts, Inside Oxford Science:you can listen here or download it from iTunesU.

In OxSciBlog’s Inside Oxford Science Extra (IOS Extra) we delve deeper into the issues behind the podcast with extra info, photos and links…

Enough stuff: dark matter
It’s the stuff we don’t see that’s all around us: dark matter is passing through our bodies and the Earth itself.

As cosmologist Pedro Ferreira explains, it’s called ‘dark’ because it doesn’t emit or reflect light and it’s important because without this dark ‘stuff’ there wouldn’t be enough mass to keep the galaxies we see from flying apart.

At the moment we can only infer dark matter is there by its influence on the things we can see: the only way to get direct evidence for dark matter is to build detectors deep underground and wait for particles of this stuff to collide with something and have instruments sensitive enough to pick it up.

But dark matter doesn’t explain another observation: that the universe is expanding far more quickly than it should do. This has led some to suggest the presence of a repulsive force, pushing the universe apart, that they call ‘dark energy’.

If we don’t know much about dark matter we know exactly nothing about ‘dark energy’ to the point where Oxford scientists – including Pedro, Tim Clifton and Kate Land – have suggested it may not exist at all.

In Scientific American they recently described an idea that does away with the need for this repulsive force, challenging the Copernican principle – that the Earth does not exist in a special place – and offering an alternative explanation: that the Earth exists in a giant cosmic void.

Of bubbles and voids
As reported on OxSciBlog last year such a void (an area with a lower density of cosmic stuff) would have to be truly vast: a ‘billion parsec bubble’.

Tim Clifton told us then that the very same observations of distant supernovae that have led some people to suggest dark energy could be explained by such a void: ‘In this sense, the accelerating expansion of the Universe would be a type of mirage, resulting from interpreting the data in an incorrect model.’

Stranger still, Pedro tells us if the void idea is correct then there could be many other such voids in space, likening it to the ‘hills and valleys’ of a landscape.

The good news is that we can, in theory, test if these voids are out there. The bad news? The observing effort would have to be immense, think about these scales:

50,000 light years – detect dark matter

10m light years – detect intergalactic structures

800m light years – detect voids

Mapping, let alone categorising and comparing, such vast areas of space in the search for voids would be a mammoth undertaking. However, if projects such as the Square Kilometre Array get the go ahead it could be possible.

Of course, as Pedro points out, the existence of such voids is still very unlikely but then so is the existence of an exotic substance such as ‘dark energy’.

Modern buildings, modern science
If anyone thinks Oxford scientists work in ivory towers, think again, as we discovered when Marcus du Sautoy and the team discussed whether great architecture can inspire great science.

In fact most Oxford scientists work in modern, often purpose-built, laboratories and office spaces: not that surprising when a lot of today’s science is done sitting at a computer.

Marcus kicked off with some thoughts on Oxford’s glamorous new Biochemistry building [get a full run-down and more photos here].

Its glass facade, central timber-clad atrium and communal spaces are intended to reflect the transparency and collaborative nature of scientific work today. Even the decoration gets in on the act with carpets resembling computer simulations and a giant sculpture of bird-like forms exploring the state of matter on show.

Architecture certainly can be a social enabler: encouraging the sort of informal interactions that lead to people swapping ideas.

Marcus highlights the example of the RSA algorithm that is used to keep your credit card details safe which only came about because three scientists from different disciplines - Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Leonard Adleman – had offices near to each other, due to MIT’s philosophy of having interdepartmental offices, and could easily drop by and chat about their ideas.

What shape is your science?
However, strange things can happen to architecture when the science of transparency and collaboration meets the need for secrecy: as the GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham, UK go to prove.

The outside of the building is a long glass wall fronting a corridor. This gives the illusion of transparency but in order to provide a central ‘secret’ communal garden space where government scientists can mix unobserved the building is shaped like one of Marcus’s favourite forms, a torus – hence its nickname ‘the doughnut’.

One of the problems is that, with a circular corridor, figuring out where you are around the building can be tricky: the GCHQ solution is to colour code different ‘segments’ of the torus.

Astronomers have some of the coolest workspaces around but, as Chris Lintott tells us, these come with their own problems and strange juxtapositions.

For instance, how do you find your way around a circular observatory building in the dark? The solution they use at the IRAM telescope in Spain’s Sierra Nevada is to have a luminous strip running in a spiral down the building’s interior wall.

Chris visited this stunning telescope at New Year and says that one of the strangest things was watching skiers zoom passed the dish or stop and have a chat seemingly oblivious to a structure that would make the perfect base for a James Bond villain [a dead cert location if they ever decide to remake Goldeneye].

In turn this kind of observatory architecture can inspire artists with the scientific ideas and technical challenges that determine its shape and function.

Pedro gives the example of Jem Finer, a former artist in residency at Oxford Astrophysics and the mammoth sculpture he created, Centre of the Universe, after talking to astrophysicists about their work.

What all of our contributors agreed on was that, as Irene Tracey succinctly put it ‘public space isn’t where you should work’, and that the nature of science requires quiet office areas to think and work – perhaps with glass screens so people are still visibly ‘around’ to talk to.

Their advice for architects? Provide a communal space with chairs and a really good coffee machine – chatting whilst waiting for an espresso or latte is the perfect way to come up with world-changing new ideas and algorithms.

GCHQ model by Matt Crypto via Wikimedia Commons

IRAM image by Jepes via Flickr

Your comments

There are currently no comments on this page.

• Post a comment