Starship Asterisk*

The Antikythera Mechanism

Explanation: What is it? It was found at the bottom of the sea aboard an ancient Greek ship. Its seeming complexity has prompted decades of study, although some of its functions remained unknown. X-ray images of the device have confirmed the nature of the Antikythera mechanism, and discovered several surprising functions. The Antikythera mechanism has been discovered to be a mechanical computer of an accuracy thought impossible in 80 BC, when the ship that carried it sank. Such sophisticated technology was not thought to be developed by humanity for another 1,000 years. Its wheels and gears create a portable orrery of the sky that predicted star and planet locations as well as lunar and solar eclipses. The Antikythera mechanism, shown above, is 33 centimeters high and therefore similar in size to a large book.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

too bad the library in Alexandria burned to a crisp. What would the science community give to have the books back

I wonder if it used EPICYCLES to predict planetary positions. Because elliptical orbits, and a Sun Centered Solar System were not in vogue at the time, nor for a very long time after. But if it was to be accurate, it would not use them...and if it DID NOT use epicycles....then who had it right?????

:---[===] *

ta152h0 wrote:too bad the library in Alexandria burned to a crisp. What would the science community give to have the books back

My jaw is still dropping. I knew, from reading Charles Freeman's The Closure of The Western Mind, that the ancient world was masses more advanced than I had hitherto assumed. But to have had this level of technical expertise. Wow. And, as Wolf wrote above, what WOULD we give to be able to go back and rescue some of those books...

(Devotees of Pratchett will know that, in Small Gods, this happened in the Discworld...)

Margarita

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=22552
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9072

Heliocentric it was too.

As to the Library at Alexandria. It was largely burned at least three times: First, by accident of war, by Julius Caesar - with much of it surviving to be added to; Then, deliberately by Pope Theophilus about 400CE in his fight against "Paganism" (ie, against the beliefs of any who did not accept the God of Abraham) who burned perhaps 2/3 to 3/4 of the works; Finally, it was completely destroyed by the Muslims in about 650CE when Omar, Caliph of Baghdad, had the entire collection of books (excepting the works of Aristotle) used as fuel to heat the water of Alexandria's public baths with the, possibly apocryphal, remark "These works will either contradict the Quran, and thus are heresy, or they will agree with the Quran and so are superfluous."

In any event, they are gone. Destroyed by the religious.

In "excavating" an old dump (1920-1940 era) we "discovered" a local "Antikythera Mechanism".

I find it odd to near impossibility that no other devises of similar age and complexity have been found in other wrecks or excavations. It it screams that mixed vintages are at play.

The Antikythera Mechanism is not a mechanical computer,
it is an analog computer, like a clock, a pedometer, a gas meter...

Analog computers are meant to model a physical phenomena like
the motion of planets, tide-prediction ...

Analog computers are set once and then activated by a mechanism
like a crank handle, clock weights, water ...
They always delivers the same result for identical initial conditions.

A mechanical computer does not represent a physical phenomenon, it computes.
Each digit is independent from all the others and yet
they are all linked by the laws of mathematics.

The first mechanical calculator was Pascal's calculator in the 17th century.

Here's a video (almost 50 min. long) about the Antikythera Mechanism.

Boomer12k wrote:I wonder if it used EPICYCLES to predict planetary positions. Because elliptical orbits, and a Sun Centered Solar System were not in vogue at the time, nor for a very long time after. But if it was to be accurate, it would not use them...and if it DID NOT use epicycles....then who had it right?????

:---[===] *

Yes, the Mechanism may have used epicycles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/ ... -astronomy
This is an animation of Michael Wright's reconstruction of the Mechanism. You can clearly see the epicyclic movement of the planet hands and less clearly the various gear assemblies labelled as "epicyclic". But the Mechanism is incomplete, and this is his interpretation.
See the Wiki entry for an accessible and short discussion of the different interpretations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
It should be realised that the Mechanism was built to simulate the planetery movement for a period of about nineteen years. It was not a universal predictor, although that it was built at all was extraordinary.

It was built to simulate the movements that the Greek observers saw. In that it was accurate.
All of science is building complex models of reality, but rarely as a real world model as in this exquisite example. Many of our models do not reflect the true nature of the Universe because of our limited knowledge. At that time a 'cutting edge' of technology was gear wheels and the word 'epicyclic' is a jargon word for a gear wheel concept. The Mechanism employed that technology to describe and visualise the observed movement of the Planets. In the 21st Century, in exactly the same way, we have used the new concept of 'dark' energy and matter to describe the observed movement of galaxies.

In two thousand years, if we are still here, I hope that Boomers then will not accuse our models of being right or wrong, but they will recognise that we did our best with the ideas and technology we have now.
JOhn

FLPhotoCatcher wrote:Here's a video (almost 50 min. long) about the Antikythera Mechanism.

Many thanks for posting this YouTube video! I've only just now had time to sit and watch it through and have been absolutely enthralled.
Margarita

JohnD wrote:...
It should be realised that the Mechanism was built to simulate the planetery movement for a period of about nineteen years. It was not a universal predictor, although that it was built at all was extraordinary.

It was built to simulate the movements that the Greek observers saw. In that it was accurate.
All of science is building complex models of reality, but rarely as a real world model as in this exquisite example. Many of our models do not reflect the true nature of the Universe because of our limited knowledge. At that time a 'cutting edge' of technology was gear wheels and the word 'epicyclic' is a jargon word for a gear wheel concept. The Mechanism employed that technology to describe and visualise the observed movement of the Planets. In the 21st Century, in exactly the same way, we have used the new concept of 'dark' energy and matter to describe the observed movement of galaxies.

In two thousand years, if we are still here, I hope that Boomers then will not accuse our models of being right or wrong, but they will recognise that we did our best with the ideas and technology we have now.
JOhn

Well said, John. Thanks for the origin of "epicyclic". I learned something today!

Throughout recorded history, people have usually assumed that we stand at the pinnacle of human knowledge, wisdom, and accomplishment, and that our forebears were ignorant and clumsy. This is one of the most persistent fallacies in human thought. If you read Homer or Sophocles, it's obvious that ancient people were just as smart, thoughtful, and self-aware, just as subtle in their negotiation of life's ambiguities and tragedies, as we are today. I worry about the monomania for "STEM" in our current educational system. We're losing the value of a broad liberal education as a common social denominator.

Anthony Barreiro wrote:
Well said, John. Thanks for the origin of "epicyclic". I learned something today!

Throughout recorded history, people have usually assumed that we stand at the pinnacle of human knowledge, wisdom, and accomplishment, and that our forebears were ignorant and clumsy. This is one of the most persistent fallacies in human thought. If you read Homer or Sophocles, it's obvious that ancient people were just as smart, thoughtful, and self-aware, just as subtle in their negotiation of life's ambiguities and tragedies, as we are today. I worry about the monomania for "STEM" in our current educational system. We're losing the value of a broad liberal education as a common social denominator.

Err, showing the narrowness of my education... What does STEM mean in this context? (Remember, I'm English and live in the back of beyond!)

Margarita

MargaritaMc wrote:What does STEM mean in this context?

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

bystander wrote:

MargaritaMc wrote:What does STEM mean in this context?

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

Many thanks. How very grim and limiting education must be if there is no music, poetry, art, history...

Margarita

Margarita,
you are absolutely correct. Makes for a well rounded person with enough breadth to be invited to a lot of parties ( interesting people get to go to a lot of places )

Or if Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics are missing.

The fact that you are here, Margarita, tells me that you are not one of the PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) or Arts graduates, who think that they dirty their minds with an understanding of any science based subject. The Two Cultures was the subject of CP Snow's book "The Two Cultures" fifty years ago and we still have not resolved the problem he encapsulated.

JOhn

ta152h0 wrote:Margarita,
you are absolutely correct. Makes for a well rounded person with enough breadth to be invited to a lot of parties ( interesting people get to go to a lot of places )

This isn't at all relevant, but I keep thinking of Sir Toby Belch to Malvolio;

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?

Margarita

JohnD wrote:Or if Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics are missing.

The fact that you are here, Margarita, tells me that you are not one of the PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) or Arts graduates, who think that they dirty their minds with an understanding of any science based subject. The Two Cultures was the subject of CP Snow's book "The Two Cultures" fifty years ago and we still have not resolved the problem he encapsulated.

JOhn

Oh absolutely, John! I am using my retirement to fill up the woeful lacunae in my education caused by an almost total absence of scientific subjects. (However, it must be said that as I missed so much of my education by being hospitalised as a child, I had a woeful lack of education, full stop.) For me, learning about, say, Physics and Biochemistry (my husband is research immunologist, so I am ahead of the game there) is gloriously stimulating and enthralling - the same level of delight and joy that, for example, is given by watching the Royal Shakespeare Theatre performing Hamlet, or the Opera North 1992 production of Carmen.

Astronomy is the best of both worlds for me: What painting by Cezanne or Turner can be more gasp- makingly beautiful than the Apod of the Fornax Cluster? Or statue more impressive a piece of work than the Antikythera Mechanism?

Margarita

JohnD wrote:Or if Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics are missing.

The fact that you are here, Margarita, tells me that you are not one of the PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) or Arts graduates, who think that they dirty their minds with an understanding of any science based subject. The Two Cultures was the subject of CP Snow's book "The Two Cultures" fifty years ago and we still have not resolved the problem he encapsulated.

JOhn

Snow made his "two cultures" speech in Cambridge in 1959, a time and place where the humanities had more intellectual prestige than the sciences. Look at the new buildings and newly endowed chairs on any university campus over the past 25 years, and it's clear that the pendulum has swung to the other extreme.

A broad liberal education includes enough math and science to allow a person to read and understand scientific reports, to place a specific finding in context, to understand research methods and statistical analysis well enough not to swallow every assertion credulously and uncritically, and to have well-reasoned opinions about matters of public interest.

Arguing about whether the humanities or sciences is more important is a bit like asking whether you should keep your left or right foot. You walk best with two feet.

No argument with that, Anthony!
And glad to hear that education is wider now - I presume you speak from your place in education?
I'm a physician, in a specialty with a stronger science content than most - anaesthesia.
Doctors have long sat between the two cultures, some say because we are not bright enough for either!

John

JohnD wrote:No argument with that, Anthony!
And glad to hear that education is wider now - I presume you speak from your place in education?
I'm a physician, in a specialty with a stronger science content than most - anaesthesia.
Doctors have long sat between the two cultures, some say because we are not bright enough for either!

John

I don't work in education, I'm a clinical social worker. I did my undergraduate studies at the University of California Santa Cruz, a campus founded in 1965 to provide a first-rate undergraduate liberal arts education, balancing and integrating the humanities and the sciences. They recruited faculty who were passionate about teaching undergraduates. When I attended UCSC in the late 1970's they were still living up to that ideal. By now they have been mostly taken over by graduate studies in the sciences, because that's where the funding comes from. I'm not complaining about their science programs, some of them (including astrophysics) are pretty awesome, but I do believe that the balance has been lost, especially for undergraduates who are being prepared for specialized careers rather than lifelong intellectual curiosity, learning, and citizenship.

I work with medical doctors and have tremendous respect for medicine. You need to be up to speed on the current science, but you also need to be able to relate to patients as whole human beings. I haven't worked with anaesthesiologists, I imagine that would be more inclined toward science. You probably don't have too many discussions about Sophocles with your patients.

Plenty of kids still get a liberal arts education. My spawn took astronomy last year because he had to have a science ("Just one??," I asked. Apparently so.) to fulfill his degree requirements. This from a kid who looked for a book on low-temperature physics when he was about 10 and was disappointed that Borders didn't have any... a kid who wanted, and got, a book on the elements.... a kid who was "the" programmer for his high school robotics team and was going to major in computer science!

He expects to graduate in May with a B.A. in philosophy.

I don't see a monomania for STEM; I do see many many kids with poor science and math educations, and many adults who don't have a basic understanding of basic science and math, and without the ability to think critically.

Owlice wrote:
I don't see a monomania for STEM; I do see many many kids with poor science and math educations, and many adults who don't have a basic understanding of basic science and math, and without the ability to think critically.

I have to agree.

To me the problem is not necessarily so much a too-great interest in sciences, but rather a - well, let's call it a fundamentalist approach to what should be humanities, and a fundamentalist approach to society and to people.

By "fundamentalist" I don't necessarily mean a religious conviction. I mean, rather, the cocksure-ness of whatever trend is "winning" at the moment and whatever trend dominates over the others because it has more money than the others. I talk about a situation where people in power can say that other people's problems aren't problems because they aren't the ones who have the right to define what is a problem and what is not.

Ann