Life, the Universe and the Partial Eclipse..

As you will no doubt be aware, tomorrow there will be a Partial Eclipse of the Sun visible from the United Kingdom. Here’s a handy guide, courtesy of the Met Office, to the time and maximum fraction of the Sun’s disk that will be obscured.


Unfortunately the weather forecast for Brighton isn’t marvellous so it’s possible that the main event will be obscured by cloud and all we experience is that an already dark and gloomy morning gets even darker and gloomier.

However, in the event that the weather forecast turns out to be inaccurate, which is far from unheard of, please make sure you follow the official Royal Astronomical Society guidelines to make sure you observe it safely.

And while I’m at it, here is a video of a nice lecture by Ian Ridpath explaining all about Solar and Lunar Eclipses.

As a spectacle a partial solar eclipse is pretty exciting – as long as it’s not cloudy – but even a full view of one can’t really be compared with the awesome event that is a total eclipse. I’m lucky enough to have observed one and I can tell you it was truly awe-inspiring.

If you think about it, though, it’s rather odd that such a thing is possible at all. In a total eclipse, the Moon passes between the Earth and the Sun in such a way that it exactly covers the Solar disk. In order for this to happen the apparent angular size of the Moon (as seen from Earth) has to be almost exactly the same as that of the Sun (as seen from Earth). This involves a strange coincidence: the Moon is small (about 1740 km in radius) but very close to the Earth in astronomical terms (about 400,000 km away). The Sun, on the other hand, is both enormously large (radius 700,000 km) and enormously distant (approx. 150,000,000 km). The ratio of radius to distance from Earth of these objects is almost identical at the point of a a total eclipse, so the apparent disk of the Moon almost exactly fits over that of the Sun. Why is this so?

The simple answer is that it is just a coincidence. There seems no particular physical reason why the geometry of the Earth-Moon-Sun system should have turned out this way. Moreover, the system is not static. The tides raised by the Moon on the Earth lead to frictional heating and a loss of orbital energy. The Moon’s orbit is therefore moving slowly outwards from the Earth. I’m not going to tell you exactly how quickly this happens, as it is one of the questions I set my students in the module Astrophysical Concepts I’ll be starting in a few weeks, but eventually the Earth-Moon distance will be too large for total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon to be possible on Earth, although partial and annular eclipses may still be possible.

It seems therefore that we just happen to be living at the right place at the right time to see total eclipses. Perhaps there are other inhabited moonless planets whose inhabitants will never see one. Future inhabitants of Earth will have to content themselves with watching eclipse clips on Youtube.

Things may be more complicated than this though. I’ve heard it argued that the existence of a moon reasonably close to the Earth may have helped the evolution of terrestrial life. The argument – as far as I understand it – is that life presumably began in the oceans, then amphibious forms evolved in tidal margins of some sort wherein conditions favoured both aquatic and land-dwelling creatures. Only then did life fully emerge from the seas and begin to live on land. If it is the case that the existence of significant tides is necessary for life to complete the transition from oceans to solid ground, then maybe the Moon played a key role in the evolution of dinosaurs, mammals, and even ourselves.

I’m not sure I’m convinced of this argument because, although the Moon is the dominant source of the Earth’s tides, it is not overwhelmingly so. The effect of the Sun is also considerable, only a factor of three smaller than the Moon. So maybe the Sun could have done the job on its own. I don’t know.

That’s not really the point of this post, however. What I wanted to comment on is that astronomers generally don’t question the interpretation of the occurence of total eclipses as simply a coincidence. Eclipses just are. There are no doubt many other planets where they aren’t. We’re special in that we live somewhere where something apparently unlikely happens. But this isn’t important because eclipses aren’t really all that significant in cosmic terms, other than that the law of physics allow them.

On the other hand astronomers (and many other people) do make a big deal of the fact that life exists in the Universe. Given what we know about fundamental physics and biology – which admittedly isn’t very much – this also seems unlikely. Perhaps there are many other worlds without life, so the Earth is special once again. Others argue that the existence of life is so unlikely that special provision must have been made to make it possible.

Before I find myself falling into the black hole marked “Anthropic Principle” let me just say that I don’t see the existence of life (including human life) as being of any greater significance than that of a total eclipse. Both phenomena are (subjectively) interesting to humans, both are contingent on particular circumstances, and both will no doubt cease to occur at some point in perhaps not-too-distant the future. Neither tells us much about the true nature of the Universe.

Perhaps we should just face up to the fact that we’re just not very significant….

9 Responses to “Life, the Universe and the Partial Eclipse..”

  1. Luke Barnes once came up with an (erroneous) Bayesian argument that our observation of fine tuning should increase our belief in some sort of “special provision”. The corrected version of the argument seemed okay to me except that it depended on the observation that the universe contains life: it works if it’s your soul doing the Bayesian inference rather than your brain.😉

  2. Am I along the right lines to think that because of loss of orbital energy, the Moon’s orbit has to increase to conserve angular momentum? It seems somewhat far fetched! It’s intriguing that in time to come, total eclipses won’t be possible as a result – better wake up early tomorrow to witness this in person, my great great greee……etc….eeeat grandkids might have to result to good old Youtube indeed….!

  3. SandraFromAcr...Flanders Says:

    “Perhaps we should just face up to the fact that we’re just not very significant….” : Yes, we should, but we usually don’t…

  4. Phillip Helbig Says:

    “The simple answer is that it is just a coincidence. There seems no particular physical reason why the geometry of the Earth-Moon-Sun system should have turned out this way. Moreover, the system is not static.”

    If find it strange that many, if not most, people are willing to accept this as “just coincidence”, but are not willing to accept other “coincidences” in cosmology such as the coincidence problem, the cosmological-constant problems, etc. Discuss.

    • Phillip Helbig Says:

      The next time some cosmologist gives a talk about some “coincidence” in cosmology (perhaps one which, he hopes, can be explained by his pet theory), after his talk ask him “Are you worried about the sizes of the Sun and the Moon?” Donald Lynden-Bell once asked this question after a talk by Mike Turner at an RAS meeting. I wasn’t there, but I know because I read The Observatory. (I also suspect that he asked the question in a very loud voice without a microphone.)

      Turner’s reply was also interesting: “Well, the trouble with coincidences is that sometimes they tell you something and sometimes they don’t.”

      • telescoper Says:

        “Any coincidencce is worth noticing. You can throw it away later if it is only a coincidence.”
        ― Agatha Christie, Nemesis

  5. Phillip Helbig Says:

    “I’ve heard it argued that the existence of a moon reasonably close to the Earth may have helped the evolution of terrestrial life.”

    This is somewhat plausible, and can explain why the Moon is relatively large (most satellites are relatively much smaller than the Moon), but cannot explain the fact that its angular size—now—is the same as that of the Sun.

  6. Phillip Helbig Says:

    In many flags, what is, according to all sources, supposed to be a crescent Moon, actually looks more like the Sun during a partial eclipse. Why? I had often wondered about this, apparently alone, though recently I did read that someone else had also noticed it. I still don’t know why.
    . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: