Where does the moon come from?

Whether we’re trying to find out where it came from, or how to siphon off some of its energy, grappling with the moon is harder than it looks.

When the Apollo astronauts brought back pieces of lunar rock, the samples promised to answer the question of the moon’s origin. It’s a question we are still asking.

The “big splash” theory of a gargantuan collision between two planets is the favourite. The idea is that a Mars-sized object hit the young earth, throwing off a load of matter which coalesced to form the moon.

Scientists became convinced that the big splash theory must be correct because it calls for the stuff in the moon to be lighter than the atoms making up earth. Initial analysis of the relative abundance of various forms of atoms (known as isotopes) in the Apollo samples provided supporting evidence.

However, researchers then thought to take account of the effects of a few billion years of bombardment by high-energy subatomic particles called cosmic rays. Because earth is protected from cosmic rays by its magnetic field, these would change the moon’s isotope abundances only and in particular ways. Unfortunately, all this has been a dampener on the big splash theory.

Other theories are available. The moon could simply have formed independently at the same time as the earth, for instance. Or it could have been a passing body that fell into our planet’s gravitational field and got trapped.

Most planetary scientists remain convinced that the big splash is right but to convince themselves and others they have to work out a consistent story. That’s why they gathered to sift through all the evidence at the Royal Society in London on 23 and 24 September.

Despite the lack of consensus, scientific achievements in this area are astonishing. We are narrowing down the timings of events that occurred 4.5 billion years ago. Some of the research that was presented showed that the moon is roughly 100 million years younger than we had thought. This kind of forensic analysis of vaporised rock is an extraordinary feat.

If only our progress in harvesting lunar energy was as extraordinary. Most experts are convinced that there is a way to profit from the moon’s gravitational pull on the oceans, but the devil is in the detail.

The Scottish government recently gave the go-ahead for the Pentland Firth to host Europe’s largest tidal energy project. It is estimated that the Pentland Firth could eventually meet half of Scotland’s electricity needs, but for now engineers are aiming to have 40 per cent of homes in the Scottish Highlands running off lunar power by 2020.

In many ways, it’s a great leap forward. Yet meeting 40 per cent of the needs of one of the UK’s less inhabited regions also seems a little underwhelming. One of the benefits of being a small island is that Britain has copious tidal and wave power at its disposal: enough to meet a fifth of our electricity needs.

Whether we’re trying to find out where it came from, or how to siphon off some of its energy, grappling with the moon is harder than it looks.

A 'Super Moon' rises over Sydney. Image: Getty

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 07 October 2013 issue of the New Statesman, The last days of Nelson Mandela

Getty
Show Hide image

“Stinking Googles should be killed”: why 4chan is using a search engine as a racist slur

Users of the anonymous forum are targeting Google after the company introduced a programme for censoring abusive language.

Contains examples of racist language and memes.

“You were born a Google, and you are going to die a Google.”

Despite the lack of obscenity and profanity in this sentence, you have probably realised it was intended to be offensive. It is just one of hundreds of similar messages posted by the users of 4chan’s Pol board – an anonymous forum where people go to be politically incorrect. But they haven’t suddenly seen the error of their ways about using the n-word to demean their fellow human beings – instead they are trying to make the word “Google” itself become a racist slur.

In an undertaking known as “Operation Google”, some 4chan users are resisting Google’s latest artificial intelligence program, Conversation AI, by swapping smears for the names of Google products. Conversation AI aims to spot and flag offensive language online, with the eventual possibility that it could automatically delete abusive comments. The famously outspoken forum 4chan, and the similar website 8chan, didn’t like this, and began their campaign which sees them refer to “Jews” as “Skypes”, Muslims as “Skittles”, and black people as “Googles”.

If it weren’t for the utterly abhorrent racism – which includes users conflating Google’s chat tool “Hangouts” with pictures of lynched African-Americans – it would be a genius idea. The group aims to force Google to censor its own name, making its AI redundant. Yet some have acknowledged this might not ultimately work – as the AI will be able to use contextual clues to filter out when “Google” is used positively or pejoratively – and their ultimate aim is now simply to make “Google” a racist slur as revenge.


Posters from 4chan

“If you're posting anything on social media, just casually replace n****rs/blacks with googles. Act as if it's already a thing,” wrote one anonymous user. “Ignore the company, just focus on the word. Casually is the important word here – don't force it. In a month or two, Google will find themselves running a company which is effectively called ‘n****r’. And their entire brand is built on that name, so they can't just change it.”

There is no doubt that Conversation AI is questionable to anyone who values free speech. Although most people desire a nicer internet, it is hard to agree that this should be achieved by blocking out large swathes of people, and putting the power to do so in the hands of one company. Additionally, algorithms can’t yet accurately detect sarcasm and humour, so false-positives are highly likely when a bot tries to identify whether something is offensive. Indeed, Wired journalist Andy Greenberg tested Conversation AI out and discovered it gave “I shit you not” 98 out of 100 on its personal attack scale.

Yet these 4chan users have made it impossible to agree with their fight against Google by combining it with their racism. Google scores the word “moron” 99 out of 100 on its offensiveness scale. Had protestors decided to replace this – or possibly even more offensive words like “bitch” or “motherfucker” – with “Google”, pretty much everyone would be on board.

Some 4chan users are aware of this – and indeed it is important not to consider the site a unanimous entity. “You're just making yourselves look like idiots and ruining any legitimate effort to actually do this properly,” wrote one user, while some discussed their concerns that “normies” – ie. normal people – would never join in. Other 4chan users are against Operation Google as they see it as self-censorship, or simply just stupid.


Memes from 4chan

But anyone who disregards these efforts as the work of morons (or should that be Bings?) clearly does not understand the power of 4chan. The site brought down Microsoft’s AI Tay in a single day, brought the Unicode swastika (卐) to the top of Google’s trends list in 2008, hacked Sarah Palin’s email account, and leaked a large number of celebrity nudes in 2014. If the Ten Commandments were rewritten for the modern age and Moses took to Mount Sinai to wave two 16GB Tablets in the air, then the number one rule would be short and sweet: Thou shalt not mess with 4chan.

It is unclear yet how Google will respond to the attack, and whether this will ultimately affect the AI. Yet despite what ten years of Disney conditioning taught us as children, the world isn’t split into goodies and baddies. While 4chan’s methods are deplorable, their aim of questioning whether one company should have the power to censor the internet is not.

Google also hit headlines this week for its new “YouTube Heroes” program, a system that sees YouTube users rewarded with points when they flag offensive videos. It’s not hard to see how this kind of crowdsourced censorship is undesirable, particularly again as the chance for things to be incorrectly flagged is huge. A few weeks ago, popular YouTubers also hit back at censorship that saw them lose their advertising money from the site, leading #YouTubeIsOverParty to trend on Twitter. Perhaps ultimately, 4chan didn't need to go on a campaign to damage Google's name. It might already have been doing a good enough job of that itself.

Google has been contacted for comment.

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.