Blogs / Cosmic Variance

Google is now serving up more than a hundred years of photographs from Life Magazine. The pictures of the early days of astronomy are just spectacular. The archives contain images of many astronomers who were critical figures in the development of the field, but who have yet to have telescopes named after them. A large fraction of them also seemed to smoke pipes.

A huge hero of mine is Walter Baade. Baade was the guy who essentially took over observations at Mt Wilson during the blackouts of WWII. With the lights of Los Angeles snuffed out, and unable to serve in the military himself, he pushed the telescopes on Mt Wilson to their limits, and established the study of stellar populations in nearby galaxies.

There are some terrific pictures of Walter Adams working at Mt Wilson. In the picture below, he’s holding the telescope controls used for guiding. During an astronomical observation, you have to move the telescope to compensate for the earth’s rotation. Nowadays, your computer can take care of it by adjusting the position to keep a bright star at a fixed position on a CCD camera. Back then, you looked through a little spotting scope, and manually adjusted the telescope position to keep it pointed at the right part of the sky. If you let it drift, your image would be blurry. No pee breaks for you, Dr. Adams!

The guy kneeling in the figure below is Gerard Kuiper, working on a telescope at McDonald Observatory. He was a planetary astronomer, and the guy for whom the “Kuiper Belt” in the outer solar system was named, although Edgeworth probably deserved more credit for it. (Kuiper actually does have an airborne observatory named after him).

And you have to love this picture of Frank Drake, working at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Greenbank West Virginia. You really can never have enough toggle switches. FYI, Drake is the guy behind the “Drake Equation”, used to estimate the likelihood of contact with extraterrestrial civilizations.

And finally, a wonderful overhead shot of the 100″ telescope at Mt. Wilson

The pictures above are a tiny fraction of the available pictures of working scientists. Cancel your afternoon appointments and dive in.

the internets will miss you so!

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday — I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially… They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes. And if you don’t understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

– Soon to be former Senator Ted Stevens, June 2006

My one big brush with celebrity since moving to LA came over a year ago. I was contacted by Brad Grossman, cultural attaché to Brian Grazer of Imagine Entertainment. (The position of “cultural attaché to Brian Grazer” is sufficiently interesting the search for Brad’s replacement after he eventually left became the basis for an article in The New Yorker.) Grazer is one of the biggest producers in Hollywood — he’s the partner of Ron Howard, who does the directing. Think A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13 — entertaining movies that can also make you think a bit.

Of course, they were also responsible for The Da Vinci Code, which was neither very entertaining nor especially thought-provoking. But it sure did make lots of cash. So they signed up to make a film of Angels & Demons, the sequel. This time they really wanted to do a better job, but the raw material was not great; author Dan Brown is not known for putting a lot of work into accuracy and all that nonsense. So, among other things, they were talking to physicists — one of the major characters in the book is a physicist, and the opening scenes are set at CERN, and involve antimatter and baby universes. CERN even set up a webpage dealing with some of the physics issues.

So I got to have lunch with Ron Howard and Brian Grazer, and talk about what would happen if you dropped a gram of antimatter in the river, and generally had a good time. Then the writers’ strike happened, and eventually they made the movie — I didn’t have any further involvement, and have no idea how it’s going to turn out. We’ll find out this spring.

But here is the point: sure, if you are Brian Grazer or Steven Spielberg or someone at that level, you can afford to hire a person whose sole job it is to hook you up with expertise in whatever field your latest movie or TV show happens to involve. But for the overwhelming majority of Hollywood projects, neither the time nor the money nor the knowledge is available to make that happen in any reliable way. We all have seen plenty of bad science in movies and on TV. Some of it is because the creators aren’t especially interested in getting it right — but increasingly they are. Too much of the bad science is just because the writers and directors didn’t know any better, and didn’t know how to find out.

No more! Tomorrow is the launch event for the Science and Entertainment Exchange, a new initiative sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences. It’s a brand-new program, based in LA, to provide appropriate scientific expertise to all sectors of the entertainment industry. Not just making sure that a particular scene doesn’t violate the laws of physics too egregiously, but helping conscientious filmmakers accurately portray the culture of science — how those mysterious scientists really think and talk and dress. (I think it’s pretty obvious that the acronym for the new effort should be written as SEEx, which has the useful resonance with “seeks,” which is what a good scientist does. It also has some resonance with “sex,” which is less directly related to the scientific enterprise, but won’t hurt with the Hollywood crowd.)

SEEx is off to a great start, as they recently hired the lovely and talented Jennifer Ouellette to be the director of the new program. Jennifer was brought in a bit late, but has big plans for bringing together both sides of the cultural divide between these two glamorous and creative fields of human endeavor. Personally, as spouse of the head honcho of the program, I’m hoping to also benefit; in particular, I’d like to get to meet Jodie Foster some day. Just because she was such a positive role model of a scientist in cinema, you understand.

I have been buying things, banking, booking reservations, and all sorts of other transactions on the Internet for 13 years now. I don’t know how many times I have given out my credit card number, and lots of other personal information, trusting that it would be respected. Until now, it always has been. Obviously Internet commerce has thrived, and formed an important part of our economy.

But, as our department’s computer support person said recently, “the road ahead is filled with marauders”. Heh. Not just the road ahead…

It all started last January when I was interested in getting a home equity line of credit to do our landscaping project this year. Some of the places I wanted to apply to a specified minimum credit scores – I wanted to know mine. So, I Googled “free credit report” and got a list. I confess I don’t remember which one I went to. I do remember though that in order to get my free credit report at a certain point I had to enter my credit card number and authorize a one dollar payment. I was very careful to not sign up for any of the subscriptions or services that kept popping up as I clicked my way to my free credit report.

Eventually, I did get my free credit report, my score was great, and a few weeks later and got a really great deal on a home equity line of credit.

(more…)

The title is a bit misleading; what is being referred to is not a realistic cosmological model at all. But it’s interesting to see that not every professional astronomer believes in the Big Bang model; there are still some out there who are sticking with the Steady State theory. Seriously.

A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years
Authors: Geoffrey Burbidge

Abstract: This meeting is entitled “A Century of Cosmology.” But most of the papers being given here are based on work done very recently and there is really no attempt being made to critically review what has taken place in the last 90 or 100 years. Instead, in general the participants accept without question that cosmology equates to “hot big bang cosmology” with all of its bells and whistles. All of the theory and the results obtained from observations are interpreted on the assumption that this extremely popular model is the correct one, and observers feel that they have to interpret its results in terms of what this theory allows. No one is attempting to seriously test the model with a view to accepting it or ruling it out. They are aware, as are the theorists, that there are enough free parameters available to fix up almost any model of the type.

The current scheme given in detail for example by Spergel et al (206, 2007) demonstrates this. How we got to this stage is never discussed, and little or no attention is paid to the observations obtained since the 1960s on activity in the centers of galaxies and what they imply. We shall show that they are an integral part of a realistic cosmological model. In this paper I shall take a different approach, showing first how cosmological ideas have developed over the last 90 years and where mistakes have been made. I shall conclude with a realistic model in which all of the observational material is included, and compare it with the popular model. Not surprisingly I shall show that there remain many unsolved problems, and previously unexpected observations, most of which are ignored or neglected by current observers and theorists, who believe that the hot big bang model must be correct.

For those with any lingering doubts, the Big Bang model — the idea that the universe has evolved from a hot, dense, smooth initial state — is correct, and the Steady State model should have been put to bed a long time ago. Evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming. It’s a model that keeps making predictions, which keep turning out to be correct, while the Steady State theory made many predictions that turned out to be wrong.

But it’s an interesting case study in how science works. Reading Burbidge’s paper, the parallels with anti-evolutionists are striking. In both cases, one is repeatedly told that the establishment’s supporter’s can’t prove that their theory is correct. Which is undeniably true, as science never proves anything; it just accumulates evidence, and in the case of the Big Bang and natural selection, the evidence puts the case beyond reasonable doubt. Which doesn’t imply that there are no interesting questions remaining to be addressed. For both the Big Bang and natural selection, many of the details concerning the way in which the broad framework is specifically implemented in the real world remain to be answered. And in both cases, the skeptics like to pretend that open questions about the details are the same as open questions about the framework. But they’re not.

Nevertheless, one of the virtues of the tenure system is that a Big Bang skeptic can keep their position as a professor of physics, writing heterodox articles and submitting them to the arxiv. And this really is a virtue, not a flaw. Geoffrey Burbidge has done lots of respectable work in observational astronomy. Long ago, he and his wife Margaret collaborated with Fred Hoyle and Willy Fowler on an important paper that helped established the theory of nucleosynthesis in stars. Part of the motivation for the paper was the realization that conditions in the Big Bang were not right for synthesizing elements much heavier than lithium — you could explain the universe’s helium abundance, but not the existence of carbon and iron and so forth. Hoyle, of course, was one of the originators of the Steady State theory, and that was certainly part of his motivation at the time. As it turns out, in the real world, some elements are synthesized in the early universe, and some in stars, and some in supernovae; the real world can be a messy place.

Would a young cosmologist who didn’t believe in the Big Bang be offered a faculty job, or receive tenure, today? Probably not. Faculty jobs are scarce commodities, and a university is going to want to hire people who will do interesting and productive work that is of some use to the wider community. Believers in the Steady State model aren’t going to produce such work, any more than creationists or astrologers or experts in the plum-pudding model of the atom. And eventually support for the model will fade away entirely, opening the door for the next generation of heterodoxies.

In 2007, my spring semester finished up with what was a truly remarkable weekend. Almost two years earlier, it had been brought to my attention that Syracuse had a particularly distinguished alumnus – Martin A. Pomerantz – in an area tightly connected to my own. Let me tell you a little about him.

Martin was the father of Antarctic astronomy. He graduated from Syracuse with an A.B. in physics in 1937 – the same year as the Hindenburg disaster, and went on to U. Penn and Temple and finally to the University of Delaware’s Bartol Research Institute, where he spent most of his research career – serving as it’s president for many years. Martin became a leader in the fields of submillimeter astronomy, cosmic and gamma rays, and measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB). In particular, he pioneered solar observations using helioseismology, becoming the first scientist to set up a telescope and observe the sun for 120 continuous hours from a single point on Earth. This kind of research is now the bread and butter of observational cosmology, and indeed, if one reads modern accounts of cosmology from the South Pole, Martin features prominently, and can be seen in photographs of the first team trying to measure the CMB from there. Our entire field has depended crucially on observations made in this pristine environment.

Because of these achievements, and his connection to Syracuse and one of our current research areas, my colleague Peter Saulson and I nominated Martin for an honorary doctorate. This nomination was ultimately successful, and we were informed that Martin was to be honored during our 2007 graduation.

So in mid-May, Martin, his son Marty, daughter Jane-Anne, son-in-law Steve and grandson Jonah arrived in Syracuse for our graduation weekend. On Friday May 11, we held The Martin A. Pomerantz Symposium, at which Peter and I gave talks, followed by a keynote presentation by our alumna – Gabriela González – and a summary talk by Martin himself. It was immense fun. Gabby’s talk in the afternoon was great – she is a Professor at Louisiana State University and an expert on the detection of gravitational waves, who had recently been awarded the American Physical Society’s 2007 Edward A. Bouchet Award. In addition to her research achievements, this award was also “for communicating the excitement of this field to the scientific community and the public”, and these abilities came through clearly in her talk.

Martin and his family clearly enjoyed the afternoon, but halfway through Martin started to feel ill, and we suggested canceling the rest of the program. But Martin declined, had some water, took a brief break, and insisted we continue, even though he looked a little weak and tired. The closing event was planned to be a slide show (yes, actual 35mm slides) presented by Martin, and discussing the early days of Antarctic astronomy, through his 27th and final visit to the pole at age 79 (during which the NSF recognized him by naming an observatory at the U.S. Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station after him). We were certain that Martin wouldn’t feel well enough to deliver this talk, but when the time came, he stepped up, faced the room, straightened his back and gave a remarkably energetic, animated and compelling presentation. He was just a different man when discussing his life’s passion.

The next evening we had a lovely dinner, with all the other graduates, and the following morning I presented Martin to the Chancellor to receive his honorary degree. It was obviously a proud moment for him, and it most certainly was for all of us, particularly for me, presenting someone who pioneered the kind of observations that are such an important part of my field. We sat on the stage, in front of the assembled crown of graduates and their families, in wonderful weather, and listened to Frank McCourt’s witty and thoughtful Commencement speech. And after lunch we all said our goodbyes and the Pomerantz clan headed off to the airport.

The Pomerantz family has been very good to Syracuse, endowing the Martin A. Pomerantz Professorship in Physics (the inaugural holder of which is Peter Saulson) and the Molly B. Pomerantz Graduate Fellowship, and the physics department is extremely grateful to them, as well as proud to have Martin as an alumnus. Martin couldn’t make it to the formal announcement of these gifts, but Marty was there, and we telecast it out to Marty and the rest of the family.

Soon after Martin’s visit to Syracuse he was diagnosed with cancer, which may explain why he felt bad during our symposium. The prognosis was quite bad, but he fought on remarkably well. Over the last 18 months or so we kept in quite close contact, and last November I was giving a talk at Berkeley, and was able to get together for dinner with Martin and his family, and finally to meet his wife, Molly. Even though he was in treatment, and over 90 years old, he looked great, and was full of energy. We talked about cosmology, and he wanted to know about the status of the field, and was telling me about some research he’d kept up with by reading articles online. It was a wonderful evening.

In the last month or so, through Marty, Martin’s devoted son, I’ve kept up with Martin’s condition, and knew that he’d been getting steadily weaker. I sent him the occasional article, and Marty told me he liked to read them.

On October 26th Martin Pomerantz passed away. He was a terrific physicist, a true pioneer, a gentle and generous person and a caring father. I am proud to have gotten to know him, deeply sad that he is gone, and grateful to his family for the time they and he spent with me. He will be missed.

Many have been asking: who won our famous Presidential Prediction Contest? The task, you will remember, was to predict how the popular vote would be distributed between the two major candidates, throwing away third-party votes and ignoring the electoral college altogether, expressed as a percentage of votes for Obama. So if the total number of votes for Obama is V_O , and the total number for McCain is V_M , the number you were predicting is

We’ve been delaying the announcement of the results, as the entries were tightly bunched and it takes time for votes to trickle in. Indeed, Alaska still seems to be problematic, but patience is thin and it’s time to declare a winner! Visit here to be reminded of who had staked out which bits of territory. Here are the vote totals as of today:

Barack Obama: 66,679,600

John McCain: 58,227,508

which implies

f = 53.38.

The relevant entries, courtesy of wqz, are

( 52.81689, 53.10869): Tim
( 53.10869, 53.32282): Elliot
( 53.32282, 53.47922): Anonymous Snowoboarder
( 53.47922, 53.74739): Gabe
( 53.74739, 53.78569): joulesm

And so the winner is:

Anonymous Snowoboarder!

Who, I am guessing, may have mistyped their name. But when you have mad prediction skills like that, who cares about typographical irregularities?

Here were the distribution of predictions near the right value:

It’s interesting to note that the contest was announced in late June, just when Obama was hitting his summer peak of popularity (which was not as pronounced as his fall peak of popularity). I wonder how the predictions would have gone had we done the contest in September?

In honor of NASA’s current round of the astronaut selection process:

(from Dinosaur Comics. If you’re interested, there’s also a t-shirt.)

Frankly speaking, I am not big on change. Oh yeah, the Obama business was pretty good, and I recognize that change is necessary for progress, blah blah blah, but man, it doesn’t come easy for me.

I was made excruciatingly aware of this by my stubborn refusal to log into CV’s back end at our new home. Why? Because it was going to be <cringe>different</cringe>.

I actually can’t make any sense of this behavior on my part, because science is all about change. I have no problem changing topics and points of view in a scientific context. Want to know what I’ll be working on in 5 years? It’ll probably be found in the set of things on which I am currently not working, nor have ever worked on before.

But technologically-driven changes in my day-to-day behavior? Scaaaaaary. One of my students mistakenly assumed that I was a bleeding edge of technology sort of person, based on my spiffy new MacBook Air. However, the only reason I have a new laptop is because after six and a half years, my old one was sufficiently dented that I couldn’t close it anymore, and it made ominous noises when writing to disk. Oh, I could have afforded a new laptop at many points in the intervening years, but then I’d have to install software or learn to use Leopard, and that, my friends, is not change I can believe in.

So, this post is my attempt to get past the queasiness and start defining this as the new normal.

And hey! Did you see the new images of extrasolar planets?!

Ok. That didn’t hurt a bit.

I first came across Second Life at a demonstration session put on by one of Linden Lab’s gurus at SciFoo camp in 2006. Since then I’ve heard about it occasionally, but was recently reminded about the details of how it works by Sean’s post on his talk in Second Life. This is all well and good and, although I’m not currently spending time in Second Life myself, I can see that there is real educational potential there, particularly with people like Rob involved.

But sometimes things get just plain silly! The Guardian is carrying a story of a real life couple who got divorced because the man was carrying on a platonic relationship with another woman in Second Life (I guess I should mention that his avatar also slept with a prostitute avatar also). So, first, while some things, like attending a talk by a cosmologist, may be almost as good in Second Life as in real life, I’m guessing sex isn’t one of them because it lacks the whole, you know, you getting laid part! Second, if you wanted to misbehave with a non-human toy form, put together from basic building blocks, you might as well make yourself a Lego partner – at least you could touch that.