Yesterday evening I once again travelled into Dublin for a concert by National Symphony Orchestra Ireland at the National Concert Hall. No rain this time, I’m glad to say, either going there or coming back!
The concert, under the direction of Artistic Partner Peter Whelan, was very definitely classical music in the sense that all three works were from the classical period of the middle to late eighteenth century.
First up we had Symphony No. 22 in E♭ Major by Joseph Haydn. This is usually known as “The Philosopher”. I tend to think of Haydn’s music as expertly crafted but mostly a bit “middle-of-the-road” for my tastes. This symphony, written in 1764 has four movements. I found the first movement Adagio rather plodding but there is much to enjoy in this work, and it was given a good performance last night. I don’t think the nickname “The Philosopher” was given to this work by Haydn, incidentally.
Then, after the usual reorganization on stage to accommodate the NCH’s Steinway, we had Piano Concerto No. 17 in G Major by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, with soloist Jonathan Biss. Written in 1784, this is an enjoyable and entertaining piece, not perhaps as profound as some of the later piano concertos (Mozart wrote 27 altogether), but well worth listening to. I found it very witty and somewhat conversational in style, with lots of “call-and-answer” moments. It’s also interesting that the piano doesn’t start to play for quite a long time in the first movement. The three movements follow a standard fast-slow-fast pattern (Allegro-Andante-Alegretto/Presto). It certainly does motor towards the end!
The second half of the concert was devoted to another piece by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, his Symphony No. 41 “Jupiter”. Composed in 1788, just 24 years after the Haydn symphony we heard in the first part, it demonstrated very powerfully how much the symphonic form had evolved in relatively short time separating the two compositions. The Jupiter symphony is not only brim full of ideas, but the themes are woven into a much richer fabric. The reason it is such a great symphony – one of the greatest of all, not just the greatest by Mozart – is that the whole is even greater than the sum of its wonderful parts. It’s a familiar part of the concert repertoire, of course, but does stand up to repeated listening. Last night’s performance was very enjoyable.
On the way home on the train I found myself wondering at what point and for what reasons the “Minuet” that appeared as a fourth movement in many classical symphonies like the two we heard last night became the “Scherzo” that was de rigueur for later symphonies (in the romantic era). Answers on a postcard please…
It’s Saturday again, so it’s time for another update of activity at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Since the last update we have published a further eight papers, bringing the number in Volume 9 (2026) to 237 and the total so far published by OJAp up to 685.
I continue to include the posts made on our Mastodon account (on Fediscience); these announcements also contain a clickable form of the DOI for each paper. Our Mastodon account has regular updates and other announcements from OJAp too, including posts from the OJAp blog.
The first new paper this week was published on Monday 5th October in the folder Solar and Stellar Astrophysics. The title of the paper is “Diameters and Temperatures VII: High-angular resolution measurements of Solar-type stars with the CHARA Array” and it isby Tabetha Boyajian (Louisiana State University, USA) and 10 others based in the USA and Australia. This study uses interferometric measurements to determine precise characteristics of 27 nearby solar-type stars, including their radii, effective temperatures, and luminosities. The findings represent benchmarks for testing stellar evolutionary theory.
The overlay for this one is here:
You can find the officially accepted version on arXiv here and the announcement on Fediverse here:
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Diameters and Temperatures VII: High-angular resolution measurements of Solar-type stars with the CHARA Array" by Tabetha Boyajian (Louisiana State University, USA) and 10 others based in the USA and Australia.
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "The jet-shaped pipe morphology in planetary nebulae and core-collapse supernova remnants" by Jessica Braudo and Noam Soker (Technion, Israel)
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Balancing bias, baryons, and scale cuts in LSST 3x2pt analysis" by Ottavia Truttero (U. Edinburgh, UK) and 5 others on behalf of the The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "High-Precision Differential Radial Velocities of C3PO Wide Binaries: A Test of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)" by Serat M. Saad and Yuan-Sen Ting (Ohio State University, USA)
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Simulating the jittering-jets explosion mechanism: circum-jet rings account for observed core-collapse supernova remnant morphologies" by Muhammad Akashi & Noam Soker (Technion, Israel)
The sixth paper of the week is “Radio Continuum Study of One of the Brightest Large Magellanic Cloud Supernova Remnant N 132D” by Rami Z. E. Alsaberi (Western Sydney U. Australia) and 7 others. This was the first of three papers published on Friday 9th October, and it is in the folder High-Energy Astrophysical Phenomena. This one presents a radio continuum analysis of the Large Magellanic Cloud supernova remnant N 132D, revealing insights into its magnetic field structure, energetic properties, and particle acceleration.
The officially-accepted version of this paper is on arXiv here and the Mastodon announcement on the fediverse here:
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Radio Continuum Study of One of the Brightest Large Magellanic Cloud Supernova Remnant N 132D" by Rami Z. E. Alsaberi (Western Sydney U. Australia) and 7 others
The seventh paper of the week is “New Signs Pointing Toward a Correlation Between Astrophysical Neutrinos and Radio Flares” by Yjan Gordon (U. Wisconsin-Madison), Peter S. Ferguson (U. Washington), Eric J. Hooper & Michael N. Martinez (U. Wisconsin-Madison); all in the USA. This was also published on Friday 7th October, but in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies. It is very topical, in the light of the award of this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics to Francis Halzen for his work on IceCube. The paper explains how data from VLASS and IceCube Neutrino Observatory reveal a correlation between radio variability and astrophysical neutrino detection, suggesting radio flares contribute to about 13% of astrophysical neutrinos detected by IceCube.
The overlay is here:
The officially accepted version is on arXiv here and the Mastodon announcement here:
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "New Signs Pointing Toward a Correlation Between Astrophysical Neutrinos and Radio Flares" by Yjan Gordon (U. Wisconsin-Madison), Peter S. Ferguson (U. Washington), Eric J. Hooper & Michael N. Martinez (U. Wisconsin-Madison); all in the USA
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Spectroscopic follow-up of compact object binary candidates from Gaia DR3: White dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, and the parallax zeropoint" by Kareem El-Badry (Caltech, USA) and an international cast of 14 others.
That concludes this week’s update. We’re still on target to publish over 300 papers and reach the 750 mark by the end of the year. I’ll do another update next week.
Last night, as advertised, we held our Space Week Event at Maynooth University. This has been running for a few years now but last night was the first time we have included planetarium shows in our inflatable dome shows alongside the usual short lectures.
That resulted in much greater organizational challenges, as the space in the dome is quite limited so we had to split those wanting to attend a show into manageable groups, and that in turn meant quite a few people moving in and out of the lecture theatre to and from the dome, which were in different locations. It all went off well, though.
The weather last night was inclement, cold and with heavy rain, but despite that we had about 250 in the lectures. There were lots of young children, some perhaps as young as five years old, and I was very impressed by the quality of the questions they asked at the end of the talks and in the coffee break.
We had a last-minute change of order of lectures because one of our speakers was stuck in traffic on the way to campus. I was promoted to No. 2 in the running order instead of No. 4, which I was quite happy about because it meant I finished earlier. After it was all over we adjourned to O’Neill’s for a pint or two.
Thanks to everyone from the Department of Physics who participated in the preparations for, and running of, the event, and to all the people who came long and made it such fun!
P.S. The resemblance between the title of the event at the title of this blog is purely coincidental.
Preparations for next week’s 24-hour strike by members of the Irish Federation of University Teachers are well under way at Maynooth University. Hi-vis jackets, armbands and megaphones arranged, legal briefings delivered, and a picket roster being organized. The one thing not under control is the weather, and my memories of past experiences on picket duty are strongly linked with cold and rainy weather. I’ll be leading the morning shift on Wednesday so will just have to see how it goes.
Meanwhile, staff at Nottingham University are on strike until December 11th. Despite protests, the Management there has decided to carry on with a programme of course closures and redundancies that will cost over 500 people their jobs and lead to the closure of, for example, courses in Modern Languages and Music.
All this is because incompetent managers bankrupted the University with the hare-brained purchase of an unusable new campus.
I’m not sure the Management has thought its plan to deal with the situation through. They may save money in the short term, but in the medium to longer term they will not so much tarnish the University’s reputation but destroy it. Does the Management think that recruitment to other courses will remain buoyant after these cuts? Why should any student now study any course at Nottingham University given the risk it might be closed on a Management whim? I fear that a death spiral is now inevitable. And I don’t think Nottingham will be the last UK University we’re going to have to watch going down the drain…
There’s a short article on arXiv by astronomer Luigi Rolly Bedin with the title The Preprint Evolution: The Rise of Unreviewed Drafts on arXiv and its Implications for Astronomy and abstract:
The arXiv preprint server originally democratized astronomical research by digitizing the circulation of early manuscripts and removing the financial barriers of journal subscriptions. However, a system designed for the lower publication volumes of the 1990s has fractured under modern research output. Today, the sheer volume of unreviewed manuscripts—often tagged as “submitted”, “under review”, or “comments welcome” imposes a severe cognitiv “tax” on the community. Researchers are forced to track multiple, unvetted versions of the same work, creating a massive redundant workload. This practice also bypasses the blinded peer-review process by establishing premature precedence, and it takes a heavy toll on early-career researchers. The pressure to rapidly post unvetted results stifles independent research, pushing young scientists toward massive mainstream collaborations where individual creativity gets lost. In this Short Communication, I analyze a decade of astro-ph metadata to quantify this trend. To safeguard both researchers’ time and research freedom, I propose bifurcating submissions into two separate streams. Level-1 (peer-reviewed science) would host peer-reviewed science (accompanied by a journal acceptance or final DOI), while Level-2 (pre-review drafts) would be reserved for discussion drafts. This distinction would remove the unfair advantage of establishing false precedence through drafts and drastically cut the daily reading burden by allowing researchers to opt out of tracking unvetted versions.
arXiv:2609.35787
I’ve mentioned this paper on this blog because a couple of readers commented about it on a post earlier this week (here and here) I’ll leave it to readers to decide for themselves what they think about the suggestion of having a two-tier arXiv as described in the abstract. A rebuttal has been posted on arXiv here.
For myself I’ll just say that I think that, for such a short paper, it contains a very large number of unsubstantiated claims. I don’t doubt that the number of pre-review submissions has increased over the years, but are researchers really “forced to track multiple, unvetted versions of the same work, creating a massive redundant workload”? Is it really the case that the existence of unrefereed articles on arXiv “stifles independent research, pushing young scientists toward massive mainstream collaborations where individual creativity gets lost”? Where is the evidence for this claim? The claim of a `severe cognitive “tax” on the community’ seems a huge stretch to me too. If you really don’t want to read unrefereed articles on arXiv then you can just ignore those that don’t have a journal reference in their metadata.
I wrote a piece about preprints some time ago here. In it I tried to explain how preprints were initially used to circulate refereed work in advance of the final printed version being available, which often took many months after acceptance. Back in the old days these were usually produced by institutions with a distinctive design, logo, etc which gave them a professional look, which made it easier to distinguish `serious’ papers from crank material (which was also in circulation). This also suggested that some internal refereeing inside an institution had taken place before an “official” preprint was produced, lending it an air of trustworthiness. Smaller institutions couldn’t afford all this, so were somewhat excluded from the preprint business.
With the arrival of the arXiv the practice of circulating hard copies of preprints in astrophysics gradually died out, to be replaced by ever-increasing numbers of electronic articles. The arXiv does have some gatekeeping – in the sense there are some controls on who can deposit a preprint there – but it is far easier to circulate a preprint now than it was.
(I am, incidentally, very surprised that this article – with only reference (to itself) and no evidence to support its claims – passed the arXiv moderation process for astro-ph, but there you go…
Anyway, it is still the case that big institutions and collaborations insist on quite strict internal refereeing before publishing a preprint – and some even insist on waiting for a paper to be accepted by a journal before adding it to the arXiv – but there’s no denying that among the wheat there is quite a lot of chaff, some of which attracts media coverage that it does not deserve. It is also the case that some articles that have passed peer review are flawed in crucial ways not spotted by referees. No system that is operated by human beings will ever be flawless, and peer review is no different. Not everything in “Tier 1” is perfect.
The most important thing is for science to advance. Circulating a paper in advance of review can help to achieve that. I have very often found that comments from other researchers reading the arXiv version supply comments and suggestions far more useful than one gets from a journal reviewer. Sometimes they can spot a fundamental flaw missed by a referee. If you put your paper on arXiv ahead of official peer review you will subject it to an additional level of scrutiny, increasing the chance that the final version will turn out to be a useful contribution to the literature.
Nowadays, in astrophysics, the single most important point of access to scientific literature is through the arXiv, which is why the Open Journal of Astrophysics was set up as an overlay journal to provide a level of rigorous peer review for preprints, not only to provide a sort of quality mark but also to improve the paper through the editorial process. There’s your Tier 1 for you.
It’s been a busy day and I haven’t the energy for anything strenuous so I thought I’d put up a cute problem I was thinking about (for some reason) on the train home from Friday’s concert.
You may have to refresh your memory about units as well as the geometry of ellipses. The following picture will help:
According to Kepler’s First Law of Cricket, the boundary of a cricket field is in the shape of an ellipse, with the two middle stumps each marking one of the foci. These are 22 yards apart, defining the length of the pitch P. The distance from one middle stump to the square leg or cover point boundary is 65 yards. This distance, called S, is the semi-latus rectum of the ellipse.
Derive a formula connecting the eccentricity e of the ellipse to P and S and calculate the value of e for the given values of S and P.
Calculate the major and minor axes of the ellipse for the given value of S.
Calculate the maximum distance from the stumps to the boundary for the given value of S.
Calculate the area of the playing surface in acres for the given value of S.
The value of S given above is the minimum allowed for First-class Cricket. The maximum is 90 yards. Repeat Qs 2-4 for this value of S. (P is always fixed at 22 yds.)
Just to mention the announcement of this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics will take place tomorrow (Tuesday, October 6th,2026). I must remember to make sure my mobile phone is fully charged so I can be easily reached, although I am likely to be lecturing when the announcement is made.
I was, however, a guest of the Nobel Foundation rather than a prizewinner, so my medal is made of chocolate rather than gold. I think after 20 years the chocolate is now inedible, but it serves as a souvenir of a very nice weekend in Stockholm! Sadly one of the Laureates whose award we were celebrating passed away recently.
I drew a blank in 2023 when “attosecond light pulses” were the topic and was completely wrongfooted when the 2024 Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to John J. Hopfield and Geoffrey E. Hinton “for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks”. I didn’t see that one coming at all. Last year’s went to John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret and John M. Martinis “for the discovery of macroscopic quantum mechanical tunnelling and energy quantisation in an electric circuit”.
I really have no idea who will win it this year, but I’ll suggest that there’s still an outside chance for Michael Berry and Yakir Aharonov for their work on the geometric phase, although if they were going to win they would probably have done so by now.
Feel free to make your own predictions through the comments box below! To find out who the lucky winners you’ll have to wait for the announcement, around about 10.45 (UK/Irish time) on Tuesday morning. I’ll update this post when the wavefunction has collapsed.
Update: I’m not often right but I was wrong again.
I’m a little surprised to see this going to just one person, but there you are.
As it was foretold, members of the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) held a one-hour stoppage on Maynooth University campus today to mark World Teachers’ Day. The turnout was very good, helped by the reasonably nice weather. As well as speeches from members of IFUT, there were also contributions from the other Unions, Unite and Siptu as well as the Postgraduate Workers’ Organisation; the latter is not an officially-recognised trade union, but supports the dispute.
The next action will be a 24-hour stoppage on Wednesday 14th October. It was good to have the chance to discuss plans for picketing, etc, during today’s walkout.
The first two weeks of Semester 1 have been extremely busy. I always find it hard to adjust to teaching after the summer break even when I’m teaching familiar material, but this year we had quite a lot of timetabling issues which required swapping and juggling classes. I think it has now settled down, though, and at least I’m not behind on covering the material in lectures.
Next week will be busy for different reasons. For a start, tomorrow sees the first day of industrial action by the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT). This is relatively gentle introduction, being in the form of a one-hour walk-out from 12-1 to mark World Teachers’ Day. I actually don’t have any teaching then so it won’t be very disruptive for me, but I will be attending the demonstration that will take place during the action. I hope it doesn’t rain. I have a lecture at 2pm and a telecon at 4pm both of which will go ahead as planned.
The strikes proper start with 24-hour stoppages on Wednesday 14th October and Wednesday 21st October, on which days we expect other campus trade unions, SIPTU and UNITE to strike. I expect most staff – especially those who have a long commute to and from work – will stay at home on those days, but since I live in Maynooth I am planning to a short walk to campus stand on the picket lines on both days.
Tuesday sees the announcement of the 2026 Nobel Prize for Physics. I really have no idea who will win it this year, but perhaps there’s still an outside chance for Michael Berry and Yakir Aharonov for their work on the geometric phase, although if they were going to win they probably would have done so by now.
Wednesday will be a normal teaching day, as will Thursday but it will be followed by our Space Week event, at which I will be speaking:
Unfortunately I had to miss the opening concert of the 2026/7 season by National Symphony Orchestra Ireland at the National Concert Hall, especially since it was Mahler’s epic Resurrection Symphony. That was three weeks ago and last night was the first time I managed to make it to a concert at the National Concert Hall this season.
Earlier this week I was thinking that, although I’ve been walking to and from the NCH on Fridays quite frequently since I moved to Ireland almost 9 years ago, I’ve managed to avoid getting rained on to a significant extent. Yesterday evening my luck ran out and it was bucketing down. Fortunately I took an umbrella and wore an raincoat so I wasn’t too drenched when I arrived. The cloakroom at the NCH is free, by the way.
Having arrived and divested myself of coat and brolly, I commenced the usual ritual of buying a programme and noticed the format had changed. The new style is much shorter (and cheaper, at just €2) and has QR codes linking to much of the material that would previously have been in the programme. If you’re interested you can follow the links above. I like having a printed copy primarily as a souvenir, and the new format serves that purpose well.
The National Orchestra of Ireland was conducted last night by John Wilson. The first item on the menu last night was a short piece by Polish composer Grażyna Bacewicz called, simply, Overture. This was composed in the depths of the Second World War, but not officially premiered until 1945. Given the time of its composition it is surprisingly optimistic in tone, with its defiant “V for Victory” motif and evocations of pre-war peace.
Next up was one of the most familiar concert pieces of the entire classical repertoire, the Piano Concerto No. 1 by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Certainly the spectacular opening, with its fanfare-like introduction followed by a dramatic string theme supported by huge chords from the piano, must be one of the best-known introductions to a classical work. It’s curious though that the theme that gives it such an imposing start is not heard anywhere else in the concerto, though what follows is hugely absorbing and entertaining, if a bit theatrical for some tastes. It’s not too theatrical for me, I hasten to add. I love it.
The soloist for the performance was Bulgarian-born Emanuil Ivanov who hit a wrong note early on but thereafter played very well. I thought he really only caught fire in the last movement with its tumultuous climax. The Dublin audience is always generous with its applause and treated the soloist and orchestra to a standing ovation af the end of the performance.
After the wine break we returned to a piece that I’ve never heard in a live concert before, the Symphony No. 3 in A minor by Sergei Rachmaninov. This was written about 30 years after his more famous Second Symphony and is quite different, though still romantic, style. It is in three movements, beginning slowly (Lento) with a statement of a simple theme, but then speeds up (Allegro moderato, then Allegro) as the theme reappears in different guises. The second movement does much the same thing, initially with violin and flute to the fore before the rest of the orchestra joins in, including some of Rachmaninov’s trademark romantic string passages. The final movement starts and ends Allegro Vivace, with several changes of gear in between, but although it was exciting in patches I found it a bit long-winded. My summary would be that I’m glad to have had the opportunity to hear Rachmaninov’s Symphony No. 3, but I don’t think it’s as compelling as his Symphony No. 2.
I usually choose my seat for these concerts to make it easy to get to the bar for the interval, but there was a bonus yesterday. Because of the rain earlier in the evening many more people than usual had checked in coats and umbrellas. When the concert was over I was very quick to get to the cloakroom to extract my things while an enormous queue was growing. It wasn’t raining on the way home.
The views presented here are personal and not necessarily those of my employer (or anyone else for that matter).
Feel free to comment on any of the posts on this blog but comments may be moderated; anonymous comments and any considered by me to be vexatious and/or abusive and/or defamatory will not be accepted. I do not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with the opinions or statements of any information or other content in the comments on this site and do not in any way guarantee their accuracy or reliability.
