The Axis of Evil and Geocentrism

In a comment on an earlier post, a reader asks if the "Axis of Evil" in the Cosmic Microwave Background doesn't indicate that the Earth enjoys a privileged spot in the universe.  Isn't this similar to how the axis of the Earth passes through Earth's center? 

Not really, though it's understandable how it might seem that way.  The problem is that the term "axis" is used in two different ways by physicists.  Sometimes it is used as a directed line, as when calculating a torque.  A directed line can either pass through a point or not.  At other times, though, it is really meant to indicate a direction only.  A good example of this would be the "axis of symmetry" of a liquid crystal (properly called the director).  A direction need not be associated with any point -- "parallel to the x-axis" is a perfectly good direction that treats every point exactly the same.



That is what happens in liquid crystals, at least in the simplest case. 

In the illustration above, the "isotropic liquid" has no preferred direction whatsoever; a molecule is equally likely to point in any direction, so no direction is special.  This is how we normally think of the universe; the laws of physics should not depend on where you are or what direction you face.  You might think that the difference between "down" and "sideways" when describing the motion of a baseball show that this is wrong; the ball falls down, it does not fall sideways.  Actually, though, this happens not because "down" is a special direction, but because the Earth is a big object, and all objects exert a gravitational pull on each other.  It is the circumstances that make "down" seem special, not the laws -- just like his behavior might send one man to prison while another man's behavior leaves him free.

At low temperatures, though, we see a crystalline solid.  In this case there are three special directions:  "up/down", which is the direction the long axes of the molecules point, "left/right" and "in/out", which specify the directions of the axes of the square lattice on which each plane of molecules is ordered. 

At intermediate temperatures, though, there is sometimes (as in this case) a liquid crystal phase can emerge.  In this illustration, the horizontal planes are disordered -- there is no hint left of the square lattice.  That means two of the special directions have been eliminated, but one remains.

In fact, the idea that liquid crystals can be used to model the evolution of the universe goes back to the 1980's, when liquid crystals were used to understand theoretical objects called cosmic strings.  However, the liquid crystal analogy was never taken to mean that there was an actual preferred direction in space.  After all, very detailed experiments have failed to show such a preference.

Anyone who follows science news knows that claims are made of exciting new observations that will force the overturn of cherished ideas are made on a weekly, if not daily, basis.  Because most of these claims end up being shown to be erroneous, most scientists adopt a skeptical, wait-and-see attitude, especially towards the more extravagant claims.  Regarding the Axis of Evil, I'm still in the wait-and-see camp.  

It's worth noting, though, that the possible violation of isotropy is NOT being buried by scientists.   Scientists are the ones who found the Axis of Evil, and scientists are the only ones talking about it.  Scientists are the ones testing the hypothesis and the ones coming up with possible explanations for it.  The idea that the Axis of Evil "is being assiduously avoided for obvious reasons" is so untrue as to be borderline dishonest.  If it were really being avoided, the public would never have heard of it.

UPDATE:   I never clearly stated that the Axis of Evil, if it is real, would in fact be expected to be closely analogous to liquid crystals -- that is, due to spontaneous symmetry breaking in some particle field.  This still would not make Earth a "special place" from the point of view of physics, but it would be very exciting in that it might help us get beyond the Standard Model, where particle physics has been stuck for 30 years or more.

Left and Right

Not many years ago, when the therapeutic value of human embryonic stem cells first began to be touted, I frequently came across comments (usually, but by no means always, from the political Left) that can be paraphrased as follows.

The Pope has no business moralizing on this topic because he has no experience and minimal education in cell biology.  He should stick to theology.  After all, "Science has become the cornerstone of modern life, and it is marvelous in our eyes.  And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."  Science is justified in going on without regard to what the Vatican might decide.

This would usually be followed by claims of the goods to be produced by the use of human embryonic stem cells, claims that are not actually realized in the real world.  

Lately, after comments by Pope Francis on some of the moral problems found in modern economic systems, I come across comments (usually, but by no means always, from the political Right) that can be paraphrased as follows.

The Pope has no business moralizing on this topic because he has no experience and minimal education in business.  He should stick to theology.  After all, "Economics has become the cornerstone of modern life, and it is marvelous in our eyes.  And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."  Business is justified in going on without regard to what the Vatican might decide.

This is usually followed by claims of the goods to be produced by Capitalism, claims that are not actually realized in the real world.

The complaints really are that parallel.  In both cases the claim is that if the Pope really knew just how much more pleasant and comfortable life could be made for the powerful, he would accept the sacrifice of a few of the weak.

Don't bet on it.

Sky Burial

Is burial a religious institution, or even a religious ceremony?  It can be, but even atheists don’t just leave their dead lying around.  There is a reason from the natural law, a compelling state interest even to even secular governments, that something must be done to dispose of the dead that will limit the spread of disease and, frankly, the smell.

Now imagine that the New Age becomes very popular in the US (not much of a stretch), and there is a growing interest in practicing “sky burial” in imitation of the Tibetans and some American Indians.  (“Sky burial” means simply exposing the dead body to the elements and to scavengers.)  The argument would be made that “sky burials” must be permitted at every cemetery, that laws and attitudes prohibiting it are merely bigoted and out-of-date, and that coffin-makers must be required to provide the platforms on which the dead are exposed.

Many people would find this distasteful, but for some the reaction would be merely be aesthetic, and they could easily be won over as long as the argument was about abstractions like “freedom” and “equality” and not about what actually happens.  They would soon enjoy the thrill all sophists feel when they think they are clever enough to get away with something they really know they should not be doing.

Many people would argue (correctly) that sky burials are not “burials” at all, and that "burial" means the covering of a body, not its exposure.  They would say that whereas "burial at sea" stretches this notion, “sky burial” simply annihilates it; "sky burial" is a ritualistic way of refusing burial.  They might find themselves having to attempt legislative definitions of the word “burial” as “the covering of a dead body sufficiently to prevent the sight and smell of decay and to prevent any scavenging of the body by birds or dogs” -- even though they thought that definition had been obvious to everyone.  The success of this argument in the courts cannot be guaranteed.

Does this mean that sky burial is inevitable, and we had all better get used to the idea of the neighbors tossing grandma's corpse up in the nearest tree?  Is our only defense that we find such behavior contrary to our religion?  Not at all.  

[Edit 7-3-2015:  There should be a paragraph break here.  What I was talking about up to this point really had to do with what we can know with reason, even if we do have religious reasons to accept it.  We must not abandon reason even if everyone else does, because like God, Mother Nature is not mocked, and she is considerably less forgiving to those who abandon reason and so fail to foresee the consequences of their actions.  

The remaining sentences are a reminder that we do have religious certainty that no sinful fad is truly permanent.

By the way, I assume the reader understand that this is meant as an analogy for a topic much in the news today.]

We can be very sure -- on the explicit basis of Divine Revelation, in fact -- that things will, sooner or later, get much, much worse than they are now, when people will gladly cut off their noses to spite their faces, or more accurately, to mar the image of God in them.  But things will also get much better than they are now, and great saints will bring the Gospel to all corners of the earth, including the USA.