Comments on: Dark Energy Fundamentalism: Simon White Lays the Smackdown http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Sun, 05 Jul 2009 04:17:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: WeemaWhopper http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27652 WeemaWhopper Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:58:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27652 I think White's essay is a satire. To characterize High Energy Physics by two projects... WMAP and one dedicated dark energy experiment had me laughing out loud, and when White characterized astronomers as `generalists,' I fell off my chair. How could a generalist be so ignorant of the scope and range of High Energy Physics? White is simply pulling our legs with a joke essay. High Energy Physics is not just looking for dark energy and the Higgs. It includes matter-antimatter mixing (recent results on B_s and D_0 mixing), lots of spectroscopy (D_s** and D** have had a lot of play in the past few years), study of a wide variety of particle production and decay mechanisms, and an extremely wide variety of experimental technique. Many of these techniques for a rather rich loam that all sorts of innovation arise from... let's see, who developed the technique that led to the Keck Mirrors? Why, an ex-HEP physicist from Luis Alvarez' group. And the data processing for LSST? HEP again. Simon White is parading around with no clothes, and it is really quite hilarious. He must be an exhibitionist. Now if there are specific projects like a dedicated DE explorer that are poor projects, by all means go after them. But to indict a whole field in order to do so is laughable. I think White’s essay is a satire.

To characterize High Energy Physics by two projects… WMAP and one dedicated dark energy experiment had me laughing out loud, and when White characterized astronomers as `generalists,’ I fell off my chair.

How could a generalist be so ignorant of the scope and range of High Energy Physics? White is simply pulling our legs with a joke essay.

High Energy Physics is not just looking for dark energy and the Higgs. It includes matter-antimatter mixing (recent results on B_s and D_0 mixing), lots of spectroscopy (D_s** and D** have had a lot of play in the past few years), study of a wide variety of particle production and decay mechanisms, and an extremely wide variety of experimental technique. Many of these techniques for a rather rich loam that all sorts of innovation arise from… let’s see, who developed the technique that led to the Keck Mirrors? Why, an ex-HEP physicist from Luis Alvarez’ group.

And the data processing for LSST? HEP again.

Simon White is parading around with no clothes, and it is really quite hilarious. He must be an exhibitionist.

Now if there are specific projects like a dedicated DE explorer that are poor projects, by all means go after them. But to indict a whole field in order to do so is laughable.

]]> By: Hiranya http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27653 Hiranya Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:59:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27653 But are these worries founded in fact? I have read the Decadal Survey and the highest priority on that is an observatory, JWST, which appears to me to have a firmly secure line of funding. The Decadal Survey appeared to have a nicely balanced set of astronomy-based and physics-based funding priorities. Rather than the astronomy-based programs, it's the physics-based programs (the Beyond Einstein missions) that appear to have been hit with funding cuts and reordering of priorities. Maybe the Quarks to the Cosmos initiative is an attempt to stem this trend (I have never heard of this before so I don't know for sure). In any case, the budget crunch appears to be affecting the BE missions, not the astronomy/observatory ones, and it can only be a bad thing if astronomers turn on them too. But are these worries founded in fact? I have read the Decadal Survey and the highest priority on that is an observatory, JWST, which appears to me to have a firmly secure line of funding. The Decadal Survey appeared to have a nicely balanced set of astronomy-based and physics-based funding priorities. Rather than the astronomy-based programs, it’s the physics-based programs (the Beyond Einstein missions) that appear to have been hit with funding cuts and reordering of priorities. Maybe the Quarks to the Cosmos initiative is an attempt to stem this trend (I have never heard of this before so I don’t know for sure). In any case, the budget crunch appears to be affecting the BE missions, not the astronomy/observatory ones, and it can only be a bad thing if astronomers turn on them too.

]]> By: Ben http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27699 Ben Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:14:37 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27699 I think we do have to make tough choices, although hopefully without permanent damage from backbiting. The Decadal Survey is part of that - every ten years the astronomy community tries to rank its priorities. I have heard that funding sources and Congress appreciate this exercise in self-evaluation. However, mid-decade reviews may revise this previously constructed set of compromises, for example the NSF Senior Review and the Quarks to the Cosmos initiative I referred to above. Some of this is because new connections with physics are attracting attention, like dark energy, and some is because of major budget crunches and funding shifts - NASA's exploration initiative and (cough) our government's current overseas expenditures. Some amount of difficult choice making is inevitable. However, for example look at the Quarks to the Cosmos non-technical <a href="http://www.quarkstothecosmos.org/connex.pdf" rel="nofollow">briefing book</a> (warning, 35 MByte pdf slideshow). It will all be great science, but it's also all about how we should observe the universe in order to do physics. There isn't any mention that the astrophysical sources are interesting in their own right. Maybe that is a deliberate choice to sell the program to a physics constituency. However, it leads to worries that astrophysics will be the side order to the physics dinner. I think we do have to make tough choices, although hopefully without permanent damage from backbiting. The Decadal Survey is part of that - every ten years the astronomy community tries to rank its priorities. I have heard that funding sources and Congress appreciate this exercise in self-evaluation. However, mid-decade reviews may revise this previously constructed set of compromises, for example the NSF Senior Review and the Quarks to the Cosmos initiative I referred to above. Some of this is because new connections with physics are attracting attention, like dark energy, and some is because of major budget crunches and funding shifts - NASA’s exploration initiative and (cough) our government’s current overseas expenditures.

Some amount of difficult choice making is inevitable. However, for example look at the Quarks to the Cosmos non-technical briefing book (warning, 35 MByte pdf slideshow). It will all be great science, but it’s also all about how we should observe the universe in order to do physics. There isn’t any mention that the astrophysical sources are interesting in their own right. Maybe that is a deliberate choice to sell the program to a physics constituency. However, it leads to worries that astrophysics will be the side order to the physics dinner.

]]> By: Rob Knop http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27645 Rob Knop Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:52:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27645 Hiranya -- I fully agree. And, indeed, while Simon White is taking a bit of a beating in these parts, I think that's part of his point as well. He isn't arguing that the culture of high energy physics is bad, or that Dark Energy isn't something that should be fully investigated. What he's arguing is that in times of budget crunch, the danger of jumping on that bandwagon is that we might lose other opportunities. We have to recognize that there *is* another culture, and that valuable science remains to be done both ways. -Rob Hiranya — I fully agree. And, indeed, while Simon White is taking a bit of a beating in these parts, I think that’s part of his point as well. He isn’t arguing that the culture of high energy physics is bad, or that Dark Energy isn’t something that should be fully investigated. What he’s arguing is that in times of budget crunch, the danger of jumping on that bandwagon is that we might lose other opportunities.

We have to recognize that there *is* another culture, and that valuable science remains to be done both ways.

-Rob

]]> By: Hiranya http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27688 Hiranya Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:54:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27688 Hi Rob, it seems to me that "high scientific value" is inherently in the eye of the beholder and at least somewhat influenced by one's own research interests. For example, NASA uses the Science News metrics to evaluate the science impact of its space missions, and these do not show the dramatic difference in impact you claim between HST and WMAP. Also, if one's research interests are limited to astro-ph, one may miss the dramatic impact the latter has had on hep-th. I really don't see why we should be forced to choose one over the other (I am certainly not going to criticize either, as I worked on one and am funded by the other!). Addressing this question more generally, maybe this is naively idealistic, but in the face of scarce funding, should we be casting aspersions on one another's science, or banding together and lobbying for more funding? I mean, now we are forced to choose between LISA, Con-Ex, JDEM etc. All promise wonderful science returns. I would find it very sad to have to choose. Hi Rob, it seems to me that “high scientific value” is inherently in the eye of the beholder and at least somewhat influenced by one’s own research interests. For example, NASA uses the Science News metrics to evaluate the science impact of its space missions, and these do not show the dramatic difference in impact you claim between HST and WMAP. Also, if one’s research interests are limited to astro-ph, one may miss the dramatic impact the latter has had on hep-th. I really don’t see why we should be forced to choose one over the other (I am certainly not going to criticize either, as I worked on one and am funded by the other!).

Addressing this question more generally, maybe this is naively idealistic, but in the face of scarce funding, should we be casting aspersions on one another’s science, or banding together and lobbying for more funding? I mean, now we are forced to choose between LISA, Con-Ex, JDEM etc. All promise wonderful science returns. I would find it very sad to have to choose.

]]> By: Rob Knop http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27686 Rob Knop Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:18:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27686 <i>I should also add that there are not that many 8 or 10 m class optical telescopes either, so I wonder if people wanting to do small projects with are having a harder time.</i> I'm on the NOAO time allocation committee. Formally, the oversubscription of the 8m Gemini telescopes isn't all that much higher than the oversubscription of the 4m telescopes, but that doesn't tell the whole story. I know that there is a sense among astronomers that it's "hopeless to get 8m time," and so won't as readily apply. It would be extremely challenging to correct for this systematic effect. There's also the fact that a fair number of institutions have some sort of dedicated access to 1m class telescopes. I do here at Vanderbilt. However, only a very, very few select institutions have dedicated access to 10m class telescopes. (If you're at Caltech, you're as glass-wealthy as one can be.) Not even very many institutions have much dedicated access to 4m telescopes, although that number is probably 5x as high as the number that have dedicated access to 10m class telescopes. I think, at the moment, the Europeans have it better than the USAians. While the largest single chunks of the national 8m telescopes are probably going to larger projects (although, again, "larger" in astronomy tends to be 10-20 authors rather than 100-500), most of the time still goes to a large number of projects with relatively few ( I should also add that there are not that many 8 or 10 m class optical telescopes either, so I wonder if people wanting to do small projects with are having a harder time.

I’m on the NOAO time allocation committee. Formally, the oversubscription of the 8m Gemini telescopes isn’t all that much higher than the oversubscription of the 4m telescopes, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. I know that there is a sense among astronomers that it’s “hopeless to get 8m time,” and so won’t as readily apply. It would be extremely challenging to correct for this systematic effect.

There’s also the fact that a fair number of institutions have some sort of dedicated access to 1m class telescopes. I do here at Vanderbilt. However, only a very, very few select institutions have dedicated access to 10m class telescopes. (If you’re at Caltech, you’re as glass-wealthy as one can be.) Not even very many institutions have much dedicated access to 4m telescopes, although that number is probably 5x as high as the number that have dedicated access to 10m class telescopes.

I think, at the moment, the Europeans have it better than the USAians.

While the largest single chunks of the national 8m telescopes are probably going to larger projects (although, again, “larger” in astronomy tends to be 10-20 authors rather than 100-500), most of the time still goes to a large number of projects with relatively few (

]]> By: Rob Knop http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27648 Rob Knop Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:13:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27648 <i>Rob, re (48) - by science results per dollar, I really meant to refer to the total scientific value of the science results - not the number of results.</i> As did I. I do not equate "high profile" with "high scientific value," necessarily. Rob, re (48) - by science results per dollar, I really meant to refer to the total scientific value of the science results - not the number of results.

As did I.

I do not equate “high profile” with “high scientific value,” necessarily.

]]> By: Fermi-Walker Public Transport http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27687 Fermi-Walker Public Transport Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:49:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27687 I should also add that there are not that many 8 or 10 m class optical telescopes either, so I wonder if people wanting to do small projects with are having a harder time. I should also add that there are not that many 8 or 10 m class optical telescopes either, so I wonder if people wanting to do small projects with are having a harder time.

]]> By: Fermi-Walker Public Transport http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27651 Fermi-Walker Public Transport Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:45:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27651 Rob Knop is absolutely correct, astronomy is still dominated by small groups, but it should be pointed out that there is a move in at least some observatories to favour large projects with presumably a large number of astronomers. This is being done by setting aside a large fraction of available observing time for large projects. For someone who does not work on such a team, the chance of getting observing time goes down. If you are doing optical observing, there are plenty of 1 to 4 M class telescopes so it won't be too much of a hindrance. It is a hindrance if one wants to do radio observations since there are far fewer radio telescopes than optical telescopes. This has been my own experience. Does anyone know what the policy will be with regards to small progects versus large when ALMA and the SKA are completed ? Rob Knop is absolutely correct, astronomy is still dominated by small groups, but it should be pointed out that there is a move in at least some observatories to favour large projects with presumably a large number of astronomers.

This is being done by setting aside a large fraction of available observing time for large projects. For someone who does not work on such a team, the chance of getting observing time goes down. If you are doing optical observing, there are plenty of 1 to 4 M class telescopes so it won’t be too much of a hindrance. It is a hindrance if one wants to do radio observations since there are far fewer radio telescopes than optical telescopes. This has been my own experience.

Does anyone know what the policy will be with regards to small progects versus large when ALMA and the SKA are completed ?

]]> By: David Bennett http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27677 David Bennett Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:48:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/19/dark-energy-fundamentalism-simon-white-lays-the-smackdown/#comment-27677 Rob, re (48) - by science results per dollar, I really meant to refer to the total scientific value of the science results - not the number of results. The folks that foot the bill for WMAP and HST (i.e. taxpayers) do not care about the number of papers published - they expect major scientific advances from these expensive instruments. So, your numbers seem to imply that WMAP should beat HST by a large margin in "high profile" science per dolar. I suppose that HST also provides some value beyond the pure science results, however, since it provides a lot more support to the astronomy community and does much better at communicating with the public than any other astronomical facility. Rob, re (48) - by science results per dollar, I really meant to refer to the total scientific value of the science results - not the number of results. The folks that foot the bill for WMAP and HST (i.e. taxpayers) do not care about the number of papers published - they expect major scientific advances from these expensive instruments. So, your numbers seem to imply that WMAP should beat HST by a large margin in “high profile” science per dolar. I suppose that HST also provides some value beyond the pure science results, however, since it provides a lot more support to the astronomy community and does much better at communicating with the public than any other astronomical facility.

]]>