Nanoscale - Surface-To-Volume Ratio

Surface atoms in nanoscale things act differently from their bulk atoms. 

Consider the ratio of surface area A to volume V of a nanostructure to determine whether surface or bulk effects prevail. 

The ratio A/V of three solids in the shapes of a sphere, a cube, and a right-square pyramid is compared in Table. 

It demonstrates that this ratio scales as 1/r, where r is a linear size measure. 

All regular, basic constructions are found to scale in the same way. 

Even for a complex structure, if a single size parameter can be identified (for example, by enclosing the structure within a sphere of radius r), the same scaling holds roughly. 

Physically, the 1/r scaling means that the ratio A/V rises as the size of a three-dimensional structure decreases. 

In the example illustrated in Figure, the dramatic impact on surface area can be observed. 

The cube A has 1 m sides and a 6 m2 surface area. 

Each cube has a surface area of 6 cm2 when split into smaller 1 cm cubes (part B), however there are 106 of them, resulting in a total surface area of 600 m2. 

If cube A (part C) were cut into 1 nm cubes, the total surface area would be 6000 km2. 

Despite the fact that the overall volume stays the same in all three instances, the collective surface area of the cubes is significantly enhanced. 

A significant increase in the area of surfaces (or interfaces) may result in completely new electrical and vibrational states for each surface. 

Indeed, surface effects are responsible for melting that begins at the surface (pre-melting) and for a compact object's lower melting temperature (as compared to its bulk equivalent). 

Furthermore, significant changes in the thermal conductivity of nanostructures may be ascribed in part to increased surface area. 

A nanowire's thermal conductivity, for example, may be considerably lower than that of the bulk material, whereas carbon nanotubes have a much greater thermal conductivity than diamonds. 

Even though bulk gold is chemically inert, it exhibits significant chemical reactivity in the form of a nano size cluster, which is an example of surface effects. 

This is due in part to the number of surface atoms that act like individual atoms in a gold nanocluster. 

Bulk silver, on the other hand, does not react well with hydrochloric acid. 

The electrical structure of the surface states has been ascribed to the strong reactivity of silver nanoparticles with hydrochloric acid. 

An increase in surface area affects mechanical and electrical characteristics in addition to thermal and chemical properties. 

Indium arsenide (InAs) nanowires, for example, show a monotonic reduction in mobility as their radius approaches 10 nm. 

The low-temperature transport results clearly indicate that mobility deterioration is caused by surface roughness scattering. 

Furthermore, the existence of surface charges and a decreased coordination of surface atoms may result in a very high stress that is far outside the elastic regime. 

Charges on the polar surfaces of thin zinc-oxide (ZnO) nanobelts may spontaneously form rings and coils, which is unusual. 

Unexpected nanoscale phenomena like shape-based memory and pseudo elasticity may be explained by a high surface area and the associated surface effects. 

Young's modulus of films thinner than 10 atomic layers, for example, is found to be 30% lower than the bulk value. 

All of these findings suggest that increasing the surface-to-volume ratio is essential for nanoscale things.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You May Also Want To Read More About Nano Technology here.

Making An Appearance At The Nanoscale

Materials that interact with electromagnetic and other fields show a wide variety of spatial and temporal phenomena. 

The independence of any observation with regard to the choice of time, location, and units is a fundamental principle in physics. 

Physical quantities must rescale by the same amount throughout space-time, but this does not mean that physics is scale invariant. 

It is obvious that physics requires a quantized approach at the lowest scale, and Planck's constant h defines the least observable limit. 

Our world is governed by four basic forces: gravity, the weak force, the strong force, and the electromagnetic force, according to the standard model of constituent particles. 

Each of these forces has a distinct coupling strength as well as a distinct distance dependency. 

The gravitational and electromagnetic forces have a scale of 1/r 2 (known as the inverse-square rule) and may operate over vast distances, while the weak and strong forces only work over short distances. 

The strong force is virtually unobservable at distances larger than 1014 m, while the weak force has no effect at distances higher than 10 m. 

All of this indicates that we should be aware of the scale and units used to measure various amounts. 

All forces have the property of fading away as one travels away from the source. 

Using exchange particles, which are virtual particles produced from one item (source) and absorbed by the other, quantum field theory describes any force between two things (sink) Photons, gluons, weak bosons, and gravitons are four kinds of exchange particles that give birth to four forces; they all have a spin of one in units of h/(2 ) and transfer momentum between two interacting objects. 

The force produced between the two objects equals the rate at which momentum is transferred. 

Quantum field theory indicates that when the distance between objects grows, this force decreases. 

For example, the electromagnetic force between two charge particles diminishes as 1/r 2, while for dipole–dipole interactions, this dependency becomes 1/r4.

Because most physical or chemical characteristics can be traced back to interactions between atomic or molecular components, they all tend to retain vestiges of the inverse-distance dependency and appear as size-dependent traits for nanoscale objects. 

When at least one of the dimensions falls below 100 nm, the following material characteristics become size dependent (to varying degrees): 

• Mechanical properties: elastic moduli, adhesion, friction, and capillary forces; 

• Thermal properties: melting point, thermal conductivity; 

• Chemical properties: reactivity, catalysis; 

• Electrical properties: quantized conductance, Coulomb blockade; 

• Magnetic properties: spin-dependent transport, giant magnetoresistance; 

Engineers may adjust one or more characteristics of bulk materials by resizing them to the nano regime, which is a practical and beneficial element of this size dependency (1 nm to 100 nm). 

This property is at the heart of the idea of metamaterials, which are artificially created materials that enable nanotechnology to be used in real-world applications. 

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You May Also Want To Read More About Nano Technology here.

Nanotechnology And Nanoscience.

In 1889, the International System of Units (SI, short for Système International) was established. 

It is based on seven basic units for measuring time, length, mass, electric current, temperature, quantity of material, and luminous intensity: second (s), meter (m), kilogram (kg), ampere (A), kelvin (K), mole (mol), and candela (cd). 

Multiples and submultiples of the original unit are created by adding prefixes denoting integer powers of ten to these basic units. 

The SI system additionally stipulates that negative powers of 10 should be expressed in Latin words (e.g., milli (m), micro (m), nano (n), and positive powers of 10 should be expressed in Greek terms (e.g., kilo (k), mega (M), giga (G) (G). 

In 1958, the term nano was used to denote 109 SI units. 

The term nano comes from the classical Latin nanus, or its ancient Greek etymon nanos (v o), which means dwarf, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. 

Norio Taniguchi used the term nanotechnology to characterize his work on ultrafine machining and its promise for building sub micrometer devices in 1974. 

This phrase now refers to a transformative technology capable of constructing, manipulating, and directing individual atoms, molecules, or their interactions on a nanoscale scale (1 to 100 nm). 

While this use reflects the spirit of modern nanotechnology, it is dependent on the size of the items involved, which has a number of flaws. 

For example, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has suggested expanding the scope to include materials with at least one internal or surface feature, where the start of size dependent phenomena varies from the characteristics of individual atoms and molecules. 

By using nanoscale characteristics, such structures allow new applications and lead to better materials, electronics, and systems. 

The science of tiny devices is known as nanoscience. 

Essentially, nanoscience is a size where we can use both aspects to harness collective rather than individual characteristics of atoms and molecules — it is a scale where we can utilize both aspects to harness collective rather than individual properties of atoms and molecules. 

As we'll see later, the new features of nanostructures are primarily defined by the aggregate behaviors of individual building pieces. 

Figure below depicts a range of items with length scales ranging from 0.1 nanometers to one centimeter. 

On the right side of this image, an enlarged view of a few nanoscale (1 to 100 nm) items involved in the development of nanotechnology is displayed. 

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You May Also Want To Read More About Nano Technology here.

Nanotechnology - A Historical Perspective

  

In 1867, James Clerk Maxwell suggested the use of small machines to defy thermodynamics' second rule, which says that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. 

According to this rule, heat must travel from hot to cold, preventing the construction of a perpetual motion machine. 

Maxwell's devil is a gedanken experiment that includes a machine (or demon) protecting a small opening between two gas reservoirs at the same temperature. 

The devil can determine the speed of individual molecules and allow only the fastest to pass, resulting in a temperature differential between the two reservoirs without requiring any effort. 

Maxwell's demon is unlikely to succeed since the second rule of thermodynamics has survived the test of time, but it is interesting to discover that molecular-level sensing and manipulation concepts were imagined more than 150 years ago. 

More recently, in a 1959 lecture to the American Physical Society titled “There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom,” physicist Richard Feynman alluded to the possibility of having miniaturized devices, made of a small number of atoms and working in compact spaces, for exploiting specific effects unique to their size and shape to control synthetic chemical reactions and produce useful products. 

Humans have used the interaction of light with nanoparticles without knowing the physics underlying it, according to historical data. 

The Lycurgus Cup, illustrated in Figure, is an interesting example. 

It is believed to have been created in the fourth century by Roman artisans. 

The cup is made of glass with gold and silver nanoparticles implanted in it, and it has a color-changing feature that allows it to take on various colors depending on the light source. 

When seen in reflected light, it looks jade-green. 

From the outside, however, the cup looks translucent-red when light is shined into it. 

The ruby-red and deep-yellow hues of the second item in Figure, a stained-glass window at Lancaster Cathedral depicting Edmund and Thomas of Canterbury, are created by trapped gold and silver nanoparticles in the glass. 

Modern theories on plasmon production may explain these visual phenomena, but how ancient blacksmiths understood the exact material characteristics and compositions to achieve them in reality remains a mystery. 

Regardless of contemporary advancements that enable humans to harness the power of nanotechnology, natural processes have skillfully used nanotechnology effects for billions of years. 

Examples include collecting solar energy via photosynthesis, precise replication of the DNA structure, and DNA repair caused by endogenous or external causes. 

The primary goal of nanoscience is to discover such phenomena that are unique to the nanoscale. 

Nanotechnology, which helps society via particular applications such as longer-lasting tennis balls, more efficient solar cells, and cleaner diesel engines, is based on theoretical know-how and understanding gained through nanoscience. 

However, there are numerous examples from prehistoric times to the present day where the application of a technology preceded the underlying science; practitioners were unaware of the reasons for strange behavior they observed in materials and devices that were very different from familiar individual atoms, molecules, and bulk matter, but continued to use them in applications – a model that modern engineers and scientists appear to be following. 

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You May Also Want To Read More About Nano Technology here.

Quantum Computing - A 3 Qubit Entangled State Achieved

 

In a completely controlled array of spin qubits in silicon, a three-qubit entangled state has been achieved. 

The gadget in a false-colored scanning electron micrograph. The aluminum gates are represented by the purple and green structures. Six RIKEN scientists used the gadget to entangle three silicon-based spin qubits. The RIKEN Center for Emergent Matter Science is responsible for this image.

The number of silicon-based spin qubits that can be entangled has been raised from two to three by an all-RIKEN team, emphasizing the promise of spin qubits for implementing multi-qubit quantum algorithms. 

When it comes to specific kinds of computations, quantum computers have the potential to outperform conventional computers. 

They rely on quantum bits, or qubits, which are the quantum equivalents of the bits used in traditional computers. 

Small blobs of silicon known as silicon quantum dots have many characteristics that make them extremely appealing for realizing qubits, despite being less developed than certain other qubit technologies. 

Long coherence periods, high-fidelity electrical control, high-temperature functioning, and a large scaling potential are among them. 

To link multiple silicon-based spin qubits, however, scientists must be able to entangle more than two qubits, a feat that has eluded them until now. 

Seigo Tarucha and five colleagues from RIKEN's Center for Emergent Matter Science have successfully started and measured a three-qubit array on silicon (the probability that a qubit is in the expected state). 

They also used a single chip to integrate the three entangled qubits. 

This demonstration is a first step in expanding the possibilities of spin qubit-based quantum systems. 

"Two-qubit operations are sufficient for performing basic logical computations," Tarucha says. 

"However, for scaling up and incorporating error correction, a three-qubit system is the bare minimum." The team's gadget is controlled by aluminum gates and consists of a triple quantum dot on a silicon/silicon–germanium heterostructure. 

One electron may be found in each quantum dot, and its spin-up and spin-down states encode a qubit. 

An on-chip magnet creates a magnetic-field gradient that divides the three qubits' resonance frequencies, allowing them to be addressed separately. 

The researchers used a two-qubit gate, a tiny quantum circuit that is the building block of quantum computing systems, to entangle two of the qubits. 

By integrating the third qubit with the gate, they were able to achieve three-qubit entanglement. 

The resultant three-qubit state had an astonishing 88 percent state fidelity and was in an entangled state that might be utilized for error correction. 

This demonstration is only the start of an ambitious research program aimed at developing a large-scale quantum computer. 

"With the three-qubit gadget, we aim to show basic error correction and build devices with 10 or more qubits," Tarucha adds. 

"We aim to create 50 to 100 qubits and more advanced error-correction procedures in the next decade, opening the path for a large-scale quantum computer."

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan

You may also want to read more about Quantum Computing here.

Space Exploration, Curiosity, and Human Psychology.

Emotions and actions are involved in genetic and anthropological considerations of exploration and migration, it is worth outlining briefly a psychological notion of curiosity. 

Despite the fact that psychology has numerous ideas on human curiosity25, one key discovery is that it is extremely idiosyncratic. 

While it is true that all people are inquisitive in some way, this curiosity manifests itself in a variety of ways. 

The difference between cognitive or epistemic curiosity and sensory or perceptual curiosity is worth noting. 

“The need for new information” is referred to as cognitive curiosity, while “the desire for new experiences and thrills” is referred to as sensory curiosity. 

The difference between particular and diversive curiosity is another important distinction. 

Diverse curiosity refers to a broad need for perceptual or cognitive stimulation, while specific curiosity refers to a desire for a specific piece of knowledge (Kidd and Hayden 2015, 450). 

As a result, knowing that someone is inquisitive tells you very little about them since they may exhibit specific cognitive curiosity, diversive cognitive curiosity, specific sensory curiosity, or diversive sensory curiosity. 

Furthermore, knowing that someone is inquisitive in one of these ways tells us nothing about what kinds of knowledge or experiences would help them fulfill their curiosity. 

The details differ greatly from person to person, and there is no evidence that knowledge and feelings linked to any one subject or area, including space travel, serve as common or universal objects of interest. 

Nonetheless, there is a significant link between curiosity and exploration— but only in a psychological and biological sense: 

Exploration includes finding new information to address a problem through observation, consultation, and focused thought (specific exploration), as well as new sensory experiences and thrills to broaden one's knowledge into the unknown (diversive exploration). 

Curiosity, according to a definition that connects the two categories, is the need for new knowledge and sensory experiences that drives environmental exploration. 

Curiosity motivates exploration, but it is usually much more mundane acts of information or sensation seeking, such as tinkering with a new toy, surveying one's local environment (be it one's neighborhood, office, or refrigerator), or experimenting with hallucinogens, rather than something as lofty as sending humans to explore the Moon. 

It would be an equivocation to conclude from the facts that we are all inquisitive in some way and that we are all explorers in some way that humans in general are interested about and want to explore space in particular. 

Individuals may be interested about and want to explore space, but this does not define the species; to argue differently risks the composition fallacy.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan 

You may also want to read more about Space Exploration, Space Missions and Systems here.

SPACE AND THE DESIRE TO EXPLORE

An argument for a duty to explore space is that humans can only fulfill some inherent human impulses via space exploration, such as the drive to explore or move. 

The main activities involved by such a duty would be human space exploration and space colonization. 

Robert Zubrin, the founder of the Mars Society, is one of the proponents of this logic: 

One of our primary adaptations is the human desire to explore. 

Because our forefathers did, and because we are alive because they did, we have a fundamental desire to see what is on the other side of the hill. 

As a result, I am confident that mankind will go into space. 

If we didn't, we'd be less than human. 

Carl Sagan and Ian Crawford are two other proponents. 

In Cosmos, Sagan says, 

"We began on our cosmic journey with a question first posed in the infancy of our species and asked again with undiminished amazement in each generation: 

What are the stars?" Exploration is ingrained in our DNA. 

We started out as wanderers, and we still are. 

We've spent much too much time on the cosmic ocean's beaches. 

Finally, we're ready to set sail for the stars. 

Meanwhile, Crawford makes an even stronger case for space travel as a need for humanity's survival: 

There are grounds to believe that as a species, Homo sapiens is genetically inclined to exploration and colonization of an open frontier. 

Access to such a frontier, at least vicariously, may be psychologically essential for human civilizations' long-term well-being. 

It's essential to highlight that this is a human trait, not just a Western one, since it led to our colonization of the whole globe after our development as a species in a geographically limited area of Africa. 

Regardless of how seriously these arguments are taken, it must be true that if we participate in cosmic research, our perspectives will be wider and our culture will be richer than if we do not. 

Despite its cult following, claiming that human nature is characterized by exploratory and migratory tendencies is problematic. 

For starters, such statements are ambiguous since they may be construed in one of three ways: Such statements may be referring to the notion that mankind has a fate or "destiny" in space. 

Such statements may be referring to the notion that inquisitive and migratory habits are fundamental to human civilizations. 

On an individual, biological level, such statements may relate to the notion that inquisitive and migratory tendencies are fundamental characteristics of humans. 

These are the spiritual, cultural, and biological manifestations of the notion that mankind is characterized by adventurous and migratory inclinations. 

If at least one version of the assertion that exploratory and migratory inclinations define humankind is true, then such a claim may be used as a premise in an argument supporting a duty to support those spaceflight activities that fulfill these desires. 

To begin, even if it is undisputed that at least one formulation of the claim is true, we would risk the naturalistic fallacy, as Rayna Slobodian (2015) acknowledges, if we conclude directly from one of these formulations that it would be desirable for humans to act on these urges. 

At the very least, it might be argued that acting on these impulses does more good than not acting on them, whether via the fulfillment of wants or the realization of positive outcomes. 

As a result, it would be easy to dismiss this argument by claiming that funding kinds of spaceflight that fulfill desires to explore or migrate would be insufficiently beneficial. 

I will argue that the scientific exploration of space produces enough good, therefore I do not want to go down this path of rejecting a duty to fulfill our claimed desire to explore. 

Instead, I will argue against the first assumption, namely, that any articulation of the assertion that mankind is characterized by exploratory and migratory inclinations contains little meaningful reality. 

However, space constraints prevent a comprehensive examination of all three versions. 

As a result, I'll just address my problems with the third, biological formulation; for further information on the mystical and cultural formulations.

So, for the time being, I'd want to concentrate on the argument that inquisitive and migratory behaviors are necessary human characteristics in a biological or genetic sense. 

We'll need to look at psychology, anthropology, and genetics for some answers.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan 

You may also want to read more about Space Exploration, Space Missions and Systems here.

Views on Astrobiology and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life.

Given that educational level and scientific literacy positively correlate both with belief in evolution by natural selection and with willingness to increase space funding, and that religiosity negatively correlates with belief in evolution by natural selection and with willingness to increase space funding, it could be that astrobiology and the search for extraterrestrial life are subject to acute levels of disapprobation, at least among those with less education or those with higher religiosity. 

It is not safe to assume that astrobiology and the search for extraterrestrial life inherit the same degree of popularity as space exploration more generally. 

What of the data that bear directly on astrobiology? 

To the best of my knowledge there have only been four surveys that have attempted to measure the public’s interest in, and willingness to support, astrobiology and the search for life; and only one of these surveyed the American public.

This telephone survey, which took place in 2005, used a random sample of 1,000 U.S. adults, making it the largest survey of its kind. 

It is also noteworthy in being the only survey that attempts to discriminate between belief in extraterrestrial life of various types (e.g., microbial extraterrestrial life, versus plant-​or animal-​like extraterrestrial life, versus intelligent extraterrestrial life). 

In response to the question “do you believe that there is life on other planets in the universe besides Earth?,” 60 percent of the sample said yes, 32 percent said no, and 8 percent were not sure.(Pettinico 2011). 

Belief in extraterrestrial life correlated negatively with frequency of religious service attendance: Only 45 percent of those attending services weekly believed in life on other planets, whereas 70 percent of those rarely or never attending services believed there was life on other planets.

Pettinico also reports a positive correlation with belief in life on other planets and household income.

Of the 32 percent not open to extraterrestrial life, 56 percent cited religion as a major reason.

Among this group (about 18 percent of the total sample), frequency of attending religious services correlated positively with the identification of religion as a major reason for rejecting the possibility of extraterrestrial life, with 72 percent of those attending services weekly giving this reason compared to only 31 percent of those attending rarely or never.

This information might lend credence to the analogy between evolution and astrobiology, since religiosity is negatively correlated with belief in evolution by natural selection and with belief in the possibility of extraterrestrial life. 

Nevertheless, these results do not provide definitive insight into the public’s interest in and support for astrobiology, if only because of a curious spread of beliefs about the likely nature of extraterrestrial life. 

Of the 68 percent open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life, 45 percent think that there very likely is extraterrestrial microbial life; 25 percent think that there very likely is extraterrestrial life similar to plants; and 21 percent think that there very likely is extraterrestrial life similar to animals.

Meanwhile, 30 percent believe that there very likely is alien life similar to humans; and 39 percent percent think that there very likely exist superior extraterrestrial intelligences.

Pettinico offers an explanation as to why these beliefs do not correspond with scientifically informed expectations (that the probability of alien life diminishes as the complexity of such life increases):

It seems logical that the public thinks extremely basic life forms such as bacteria are the most likely alien life forms, because most space experts would usually agree—​at least that extraterrestrial microbes would probably be more frequent than more sophisticated life forms. 

However, the public is more inclined to believe in the likelihood of sophisticated life forms than they are to believe in the probability of plant-​like or animal-​like life forms. 

This may be, in part, owing to the influence of the media, which tends to highlight human-​like or sophisticated alien life forms. 

When ordinary Americans think of aliens, they may more readily picture Star Trek’s Klingons than they do any kind of lower-​level animal. 

Of course, it is essential to question why it is that, e.g., media representations of alien life tend to be extraterrestrial intelligences (ETI), and very frequently human-​like ETI. 

Clearly, human-​like ETI are simpler to conceive and to depict in movies. 

But it also may be that ETI, especially human-​like ETI, are just more intriguing to most people than other kinds of alien life. 

Thus, it may be that what motivates the answers in the instances of human-​ like and better ETI are not scientifically founded views but instead preferences based on what the respondents hope is the case or what they would find most interesting. 

For this reason, it is essential when polling the public to try to account for this possible variation in excitement regarding alien life. 

It is conceivable that people who are excited about the hunt for life are mainly thrilled about the prospective finding of human-​like or better ETI, and less so about “simpler” forms of alien life. 

It must be acknowledged, however, that little is known with any certainty regarding the public’s opinions particularly about the scientific hunt for alien life as it is presently being done, e.g., through robotic exploration of Mars or by exoplanet biosignature detection. 

There are, in my opinion, five problems that must be addressed in future research before we can make solid conclusions regarding the public’s views on astrobiology and the scientific quest for alien life. 

The first issue is that interests in extraterrestrial life are diverse, and could come from interest in the possibility of microbial life in the Solar System, from interest in the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, or from interest in the paranormal (e.g., UFOs and alien visitation) (e.g., UFOs and alien visitation). 

These passions are self-contained. A person may be interested in the paranormal but not in microbiological alien life, for example. 

Similarly, someone could be extremely interested in the potential of life on Mars but not at all interested in extraterrestrial biosignatures. 

Another problem is that views in alien life are not always the same as beliefs about the significance or usefulness of looking for it. 

The degree to which a person believes it is essential to seek for evidence of alien life is not the same as their conviction in the existence of extraterrestrial life, and the latter was not addressed in Pettinico (2011). 

A third problem is that curiosity in alien life is not the same as curiosity about what science has to say about it. 

Some people are fascinated by the origins of human existence but are uninterested in what evolutionary scientists have to say about it. 

It's possible that the same is true for alien life—that many people who are interested in extraterrestrial life will be uninterested in what astrobiology discovers. 

Two prominent examples are conspiracy theorists who believe in extraterrestrial visitation despite a lack of solid proof, and religious people who think (and have little doubt) either that God only created life on Earth or that God created life wherever it exists. 

The fourth problem is that curiosity in alien life, and even curiosity about the science surrounding extraterrestrial life, does not imply a desire to expand funding for the scientific quest for extraterrestrial life. 

If the comparison with space exploration is correct, we should anticipate few people to favor increased spending for the hunt for alien life, even if the majority of people support the quest. 

When seeking the public's opinion on the hunt for alien life, it's critical to ask both types of inquiries. 

A last point to consider is that absolute interest in alien life is not the same as relative interest or prioritizing the quest for extraterrestrial life. 

It's conceivable that even people who are highly interested in alien life, and even those who believe it needs more financing, do not prioritize the quest for extraterrestrial life above their other interests. 

The same may be said for opinions on space exploration in general. 

Thus, it is insufficient to simply question if one believes the hunt for alien life is worthwhile in isolation. 

Rather, the aim should be to assess the relative importance of the hunt for alien life to other space exploration goals and initiatives, both scientific and otherwise. 

Although there is more to astrobiology than the quest for alien life, it is possible that interest in astrobiology may exist independently of extraterrestrial life research. 

Nonetheless, the hunt for alien life is a major priority for astrobiologists, and they are not bashful about publicizing it. 

It is noteworthy, then, that there is no clear evidence of widespread public interest in and support for astrobiology and the scientific search for extraterrestrial life— leaving the claim that the public's desire to see astrobiology answer "life's big questions" provides sufficient grounds for the existence of an obligation to support astrobiology in this way as unsubstantiated.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan 

You may also want to read more about Space Exploration, Space Missions and Systems here.

Views on Space Exploration.

Consider the public’s views on space exploration. 

As NASA historian Roger Launius (2003) has noted, there has been and there continues to be a mismatch between, on the one hand, the public’s approval of NASA and the space program, and, on the other hand, the public’s willingness to support funding increases for space exploration. 

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Gallup polls from 1990 to 2007 revealed that an average of 57.6 percent of Americans thought that NASA was doing an excellent or good job; 28.5 percent thought NASA was doing only a fair job; 7.8 percent thought NASA was doing a poor job; and 6 percent had no opinion. 

According to the General Social Surveys (GSS) from 2008 to 2014, an average of 67.2 percent of Americans were either very or moderately interested in space exploration, while an average of 32.1 percent were not at all interested. 

Meanwhile, a different picture emerges when the public is asked specifically about funding for NASA. 

Focusing on the period between 2006 and 2010, William Bainbridge finds evidence of the influence of scientific literacy and religion on beliefs about space funding. 

Among the 52.7 percent of GSS respondents who correctly identified that “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” 18.2 percent said there is too little space funding; meanwhile, only 10.7 percent of those denying this claim thought there is too little funding for space.

Similarly, among the 50.4 percent who said that “the universe began with a huge explosion,” 20.2 percent said there is too little space funding; of those denying this claim, only 9 percent said there is too little space funding.

Scientific literacy may be the primary culprit here, since other questions seemingly unrelated to any potential conflict between science and religion revealed similar differences in attitudes toward space. 

For instance, of those correctly denying that lasers work by focusing sound waves, 20.1 percent said there is too little space funding; meanwhile, of those incorrectly agreeing that lasers work by focusing sound waves, only 9.8 percent said there is too little funding for space.

Nevertheless, Bainbridge does find data that bear directly on the influence of religion, and in particular, on the strength of one’s religious convictions. 

Of those who “know God really exists” and who have no doubts about it, only 11.7 percent said there is too little funding. 

Compare this with 22.4 percent of atheists and 24.9 percent of agnostics. 

A similar trend emerges when examining frequency of attendance of religious services. 

Of those who claim they attend religious services more than once per week, just 7 percent feel there is too little room financing; compare this with 16.9 percent of those who never attend religious services. 

 According to Joshua Ambrosius’ examination of data from the GSS and from many other polls, we must also be aware of the impact of religious tradition. 

Just as religious tradition seems to impact one’s beliefs on evolution, so too does it seem “to affect space knowledge, policy support, and the overall advantages of space exploration”.

As with evolution, Evangelical Christians stand out: Evangelicals are indeed less informed (even if reluctant to acknowledge their knowledge), interested, and supportive of space/​ space policy than the public as a whole and/​or other religious traditions. 

This is a concern for the future of space exploration since Evangelicals make up more than one-​quarter of the U.S. population and therefore a substantial proportion of prospective space-​minded constituencies. 

Meanwhile, individuals identifying as Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist showed higher than average interests in space. 

Thus, Evangelicals may have an outsized effect on the connection between religiosity and pessimism about space, because Evangelicals are more likely than are other religious groups to attend services once a week or more, to think that scripture is the actual word of God, etc. 

It is plausible, then, that the public largely approves of astrobiology and the scientific search for life, but that like space exploration more generally this support is moderated by scientific literacy, religiosity, and religious tradition, and it does not extend to willingness to provide increased funding for astrobiology projects.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan 

You may also want to read more about Space Exploration, Space Missions and Systems here.

Evolutionary And Religious Perspectives On Space Exploration

Consider first the public's perceptions of evolution in the United States. 

According to the Pew Research Center's 2014 Religious Landscape Study, 33 percent of Americans think that people developed via natural processes, 25% believe that humans evolved "by God's plan," and 34% believe that humans have always been in their current form. 

This is down from 42 percent in 2005 who rejected evolution, while the combined number for evolution supporters (58 percent) is up from 48 percent in the same time period. 

Those who believe humans developed via natural processes rose from 26% to 33%, while those who believe in intelligent design increased from 18% to 25%. 

Religious traditions have quite different perspectives on evolution. 

Ninety percent of people who believe in intelligent design think religion is either very or extremely significant in their lives. 

Religion is either very or extremely significant in the lives of 93 percent of those who think people have always existed in their current form. 

Meanwhile, 52% of those who believe in natural processes as the cause of evolution say religion is either somewhat or extremely significant in their lives. 

Though not asked in the 2014 study, the 2005 study found that 63 percent of those who believe humans have always existed in their current form are “very certain about how life developed” (69 percent of biblical literalists); in contrast, 39 percent of believers in intelligent design are very certain, and only 28 percent of believers in natural processes are very certain. 

Another interesting finding from the 2014 study is that the more religious activities one engages in (e.g., attending services, praying, reading or studying scripture), the more likely one is to believe that humans have always existed in their current form or that humans evolved according to God's plan. 

Individuals who strongly believe that the Bible is God's literal word follow a similar trend. 

What does this have to do with astrobiology support? It must be stated up front that one's beliefs about evolution may or may not be predictive of one's beliefs about astrobiology or alien life. 

After all, individuals are known to have contradictory belief systems. 

Nonetheless, it's possible that skepticism about evolution is linked to a lack of interest in scientific solutions to questions like how life began or if alien life exists. 

That is, people who have strong concerns about natural selection may not only be uninterested in astrobiology, but may also prefer that astrobiologists avoid studying the origin and spread of life. 

This may be demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of creationists are "quite confident" in their beliefs, and therefore are likely uninterested in what scientists have to say about the subject. 

The validity of this hypothesis is determined by how closely evolution, astrobiology, and the search for extraterrestrial life are linked in the public's mind — an intriguing area for future research, to be sure. 

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan 

You may also want to read more about Space Exploration, Space Missions and Systems here.

SPACE EXPLORATION AND THE BIG QUESTIONS IN LIFE.

Another common justification for space travel is that it will provide answers to "life's great issues," such as the genesis of life on Earth and whether or not terrestrial life is alone in the Universe. 

Astrobiology and the scientific hunt for alien life are concerned with such issues. 

According to proponents of astrobiology, such issues are not only inherently interesting, but almost everyone wants to know the answers. 

According to Bruce Jakosky, Both scientists and the general public are interested in astrobiology and astrophysics because they address issues that are almost universal. 

We're looking for answers to questions like how the universe formed and evolved, how galaxies and stars form, evolve, and die, how planets form, behave, and evolve, and whether they're common; whether Earth-like planets exist elsewhere; how life evolved and whether microbial life exists elsewhere; and whether intelligent life is unique, rare, or common in the universe. 

As humans, we are profoundly moved by these questions. 

They address the fundamental question of how we connect to our environment, both collectively and individually. 

There are two different rationales to consider. 

• On the one hand, there is the notion that we have a moral responsibility to answer "life's great questions" via astrobiology and the scientific hunt for alien life because these issues are inherently valuable. 

• On the other side, others argue that we have a responsibility to answer "life's great questions" via astrobiology and the scientific hunt for life since the majority of the public wants to know the answers. 

I don't want to encourage doubt about the first argument. 

This is because, although I agree that concerns concerning the origin and breadth of life are inherently interesting, I shall argue in Chapter 4 that the scientific hunt for alien life is not the most essential consideration when it comes to space environmental preservation. 

However, we should be cautious of the second argument, which claims that we owe it to the public to answer "life's great issues" based on astrobiology and the scientific hunt for life. 

However, we should not reject this argument as just ad populum, since it would disregard the importance of political and social context to scientific study. 

Although we do not need to go so far as to support a highly democratic stance, such as Philip Kitcher's well-ordered science15, it is fair to believe that in a democratic society, at least certain research objectives should be sensitive to the public's needs and wants. 

If the public is vehemently interested in a topic, there is at least a prima facie case for funding research into that topic. 

When there is a confluence of public and genuine scientific interest, it is much more obvious that we should fund study into problems. 

Assuming that the public is particularly interested in the search for alien life, and that the quest is already genuinely scientifically fascinating, it seems that there is a prima facie duty to assist the astrobiological search for extraterrestrial life. 

As a result, gauging the public's interest in astrobiology and the scientific quest for alien life has some significance. 

And it is here that I shall offer an issue to the second astrobiology reason. 

The public's perceptions of astrobiology and the hunt for alien life are mostly unknown. 

There has only been one significant study of the American public's views about extraterrestrial life that I am aware of, and it did not try to measure interest in, or support for, astrobiology or the quest for alien life. 

Although I will discuss the survey's findings in more detail later, it is instructive to form two preliminary hypotheses based on well-known aspects of American public opinion that are likely to influence public perceptions of astrobiology, namely, the public's views on evolution and space exploration in general. 

As previously stated, the American public usually supports space exploration, yet, somewhat paradoxically, the American people is typically opposed to NASA budget increases. 

Insofar as astrobiology and the scientific quest for alien life include spaceflight, it's conceivable that the American people may respond similarly. 

Meanwhile, the public in the United States is split on the origins of terrestrial life—religiosity is linked to skepticism regarding natural selection-based evolution. 

Those who doubt that terrestrial life originated via natural selection may also doubt that life arose anyplace else in the Universe.

~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan 

You may also want to read more about Space Exploration, Space Missions and Systems here.