Author Archive

Equal Marriage!

Posted in Biographical, Politics with tags , on July 15, 2013 by telescoper

BPOdpF3CcAAfr5C

I just heard that the Equal Marriage Bill has now passed its Third Reading in the House of Lords – without a vote – and now just requires the Royal Assent to become the Equal Marriage Act, allowing couples of the same sex the right to marry.

I find this quite an amazing thing. When I came to the University of Sussex as a graduate student in 1985, Brighton was one of the most gay-friendly cities in the UK, if not the world. However, the veneer of tolerance was often very thin. Homophobic prejudice was still commonplace, and it was by no means uncommon for that to turn into violence, as I know to my own cost. The Local Government Act of 1988 included Section 28, which enshrined anti-gay attitudes in law. I would never have imagined at that time that, just 25 years later, a law would be passed allowing people of the same sex to marry. It still seems barely comprehensible that attitudes can have changed so much in the second half of my lifetime. Equality in marriage doesn’t mean equality in everything, of course, and prejudice obviously hasn’t vanished entirely, but it’s a start.

It’s probably all come a bit too late for me to get married. I think I’m destined to remain forever an ineligible bachelor,  but I hope at least I’ll get invited to quite a few weddings in the near future. There’s quite a lot of catching up to do…

The Wonderful Game

Posted in Cricket with tags , , , , on July 14, 2013 by telescoper

Just crept inside out of the sweltering heat to post a quick item for posterity about the First Ashes Test at Trent Bridge, which has just ended in a victory for England by just 14 runs. I missed the first two days of the match, and most of the third, on my travels, apart from the odd update on the internet; it seems that Germans aren’t all that interest in cricket, for some reason. Yesterday I followed the action on the radio. Gripping stuff. Of course as an Englishman I’m delighted with the victory, but the Australians showed incredible pluck in this match, recovering from 117-9 in the first innings to post 280 thanks to an amazing knock of 98 from No. 11, the nineteen-year old Ashton Agar. England began their second innings in a state of shock after Agar’s onslaught and were 11-2 at one point, but gradually clawed their way into it. Ian Bell’s century and a determined contribution from Stuart Broad took them to a total of 375, a lead of 310. I always felt that a target of 300 in the last innings would be beyond Australia, and so it proved – but only just. They fought gallantly to 296 before Haddin was given out on an umpire review. Throughout the match the initiative ebbed and flowed. No quarter was asked and none given. It was magnificent.

It wasn’t quite as close as the famous Edgbaston Ashes Test in 2005, which England won by just two runs, but it certainly had my stomach tingling, nerves churning, and metaphors mixing as the plot twisted one way then another. I couldn’t even eat my lunch. No wickets at all in the first hour, then two in quick succession, then the dramatic fightback, snuffed out by the final twist of a “not out” overturned by the third umpire.

You can say what you like about the DRS system, but it certainly adds an extra element of tension to the proceedings. The world seems to stand still as we wait for the third umpire to ponder the decision with the use of replays, hawkeye, hotspot, snickometer and the rest. One crucial factor in this Test was that Alastair Cook used his reviews much more intelligently than Michael Clarke.

I would say, though, that I think this was a game England should have won much more easily. The hapless Finn  fell apart when Agar had a go at him and contributed very little to the rest of the match. With only four bowlers to start with, England can’t afford to have anyone underperform. I strongly suspect Finn will not figure in the next match, but I remain uncomfortable with the policy of picking only four bowlers. If only England had a proper all-rounder. Still, at least they’ve got Jimmy Anderson, who bowled magnificently and took ten wickets in the match.

Anyway, there are four more Tests in this series and if they’re all like this one was it will be like 2005 all over again. Except that series began with a defeat for England.

Test Cricket is the best game in the world. Discuss.

Otis in the dark

Posted in Music with tags , on July 13, 2013 by telescoper

It’s too hot to be cooped up inside writing a blog so I’ve just decided to put some music up. This is a solo blues by the legendary Otis Spann on piano. With a title like Otis in the dark I couldn’t really resist it, could I?

2013 Gruber Prize in Cosmology

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on July 11, 2013 by telescoper

The latest session at this Summer School began with a nice announcement, that one of the organizers (and lecturers) Viatcheslav Mukhanov has, together with Alexei Starobinsky, been awarded the prestigious Gruber Prize for cosmology.

The press release linked above states:

According to the Prize citation, their theoretical work “changed our views on the origin of our universe and on the mechanism of its formation of structure.” Thanks to their contributions, scientists have provided a compelling solution to two of the essential questions of cosmology:  Why is the structure of the universe so uniform on the largest scales?  Where did the departures from uniformity—such as galaxies, planets, and people—come from?

Mukhanov, full professor of physics at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, and Starobinsky, the main research scientist at the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics in Moscow, will share the $500,000 award, which will be presented on September 3 as part of the COSMO2013 conference at the Stephen Hawking Centre for Theoretical Cosmology in Cambridge, UK.

The work for which they are being honored began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, during a period of fertile, even fervid, theoretical investigations into the earliest moments of the universe.  In 1965 astronomers had discovered the cosmic microwave background—relic radiation dating to an era 13.8 billion years ago, when the universe was approximately 380,000 years old, during which hydrogen atoms and photons (packets of light) decoupled, causing a kind of “flashbulb” image that pervades the universe to this day.  This discovery validated a key prediction of the Big Bang theory and inspired a generation of theorists.

Among them was Starobinsky, then a senior research scientist at the Landau Institute.  His approach was to use quantum mechanics and general relativity to try to address how an expanding universe might have originated.  While he did not resolve that issue, his calculations made in 1979 – 1980 did indicate that the universe could have gone through an extraordinarily rapid exponential expansion in the first moments of its existence.

The following year Mukhanov (Moscow Physical-Technical Institute) and G. V. Chibisov (Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow; he passed away several years ago), began working on the implications of quantum fluctuations within the Starobinsky model.  Quantum fluctuations—disturbances in the fabric of space predicted by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle—are always present in the universe.  But in an extremely small, extremely dense, and extremely energetic newborn universe they would have had an outsized presence.  What’s more, the kind of exponential expansion that Starobinsky was proposing would have stretched those fluctuations beyond the quantum scale.  In 1981 Mukhanov and Chibisov discovered that these fluctuations could play the role of the seeds that eventually bloomed into the present large-scale web-like structure of the universe:  galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies.

When this mechanism was first proposed, it looked like a piece of science fiction. Indeed, usually quantum fluctuations appear only on tiny subatomic scales, so the idea that galaxies have been born from quantum fluctuations seemed totally outlandish. And yet the subsequent developments in theoretical and observational cosmology strongly favored this possibility.

Shortly after the Starobinsky work, the American physicist Alan Guth proposed a brilliant idea that an exponential expansion stage of the early universe, which he called “inflation,” could explain the incredible uniformity of our universe and resolve many other outstanding problems of the Big Bang cosmology. However, Guth immediately recognized that his proposal had a flaw: the world described by his scenario would become either empty or very non-uniform at the end of inflation. This problem was solved by Andrei Linde, who introduced several major modifications of inflationary theory, such as “new inflation” (later also developed by Albrecht and Steinhardt), “chaotic inflation”, and “eternal chaotic inflation.” A new cosmological paradigm was born. In 2004, Guth and Linde received the Gruber Prize for the development of inflationary theory.

The original goals of the Starobinsky model were quite different from the goals of inflationary theory. Instead of trying to explain the uniformity of the universe, he assumed that the universe was absolutely homogeneous from the very beginning. However, it was soon realized that the mathematical structure of his model was very similar to that of new inflation, and therefore it naturally merged into the rapidly growing field of inflationary cosmology.

In 1982, several scientists, including Starobinsky, outlined a theory of quantum fluctuations generated in new inflation. This theory was very similar to the theory developed by Mukhanov and Chibisov in the context of the Starobinsky model. Investigation of inflationary fluctuations culminated in 1985in work by Mukhanov, who developed a rigorous theory of these fluctuations applicable to a broad class of inflationary models, including new and chaotic inflation.

This theory predicted that inflationary perturbations have nearly equal amplitude on all length scales. An equally important conclusion was that this scale invariance is close, but not exact: the amplitude of the fluctuations should slightly grow with the distance. These fluctuations would have equal amplitudes for all forms of matter and energy (called adiabatic fluctuations). The theory also predicted a specific statistical form of the fluctuations, known as Gaussian statistics.

Since then, increasingly precise observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) have provided decisive matches for theoretical predictions of how those initial quantum fluctuations would look after the universe had been expanding for 380,000 years.  Those observations include all-sky maps produced by the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE), the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and the Planck satellite.  John Mather and the COBE team received the Gruber Cosmology Prize in 2006; Charles Bennett and the WMAP team received theirs in 2012.

Back in 1979, Starobinsky also found that exponential expansion of the universe should produce gravitational waves — a quantum by-product of general relativity, and a target for the new generation of instruments expected over the next decade.

This year’s Gruber Cosmology Prize citation credits Starobinsky and Mukhanov with a profound contribution to inflationary cosmology and the theory of the inflationary perturbations of the metric of space-time. This theory, explaining the quantum origin of the structure of our universe, is one of the most spectacular manifestations of the laws of quantum mechanics on cosmologically large scales.

Congratulations to them both! Sadly, Slava Mukhanov left Bad Honnef yesterday evening in order to return to Munich so he’s unable to use a small part of his share of the $500,000 prize to buy celebratory drinks for all the participants, but I’m sure we’ll have some sort of  celebration in his absence. But that will have to wait until this evening. We wouldn’t want to interrupt the lectures, would we?

Cologne

Posted in Poetry with tags , , , , on July 11, 2013 by telescoper

Since I’m in Germany I thought I’d have a look around for a poem related to the area I’m staying in at the moment. I found this, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. I have the feeling he didn’t particularly enjoy his visit to the fine city of Cologne…

In Kohln, a town of monks and bones,
And pavements fang’d with murderous stones
And rags, and hags, and hideous wenches;
I counted two and seventy stenches,
All well defined, and several stinks!
Ye Nymphs that reign o’er sewers and sinks,
The river Rhine, it is well known,
Doth wash your city of Cologne;
But tell me, Nymphs, what power divine
Shall henceforth wash the river Rhine?

by Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)

Lectured Out

Posted in Biographical, Education with tags , , , , , on July 10, 2013 by telescoper

Just time for a quick post today because I’m quite knackered. Both my lectures for the Summer School I’m attending were this morning, and each was 90 minutes long – though there was a 30 minute coffee break between the two. The students therefore had to out up with me droning on most of the morning so were probably sick of the sight of me by lunchtime although they were quite polite about it. MOst of the participants went off on an excursion after lunch, but I decided to stay behind and take a siesta. I’m definitely too old for hiking in this heat.

The conference organizers told me that ninety minute lectures are apparently quite normal in Germany. I’m not sure why. I don’t think students can concentrate for that length of time, and it’s a definite strain on the lecturer too. I find even an hour lecture quite tiring, actually, but that’s more the effect of expending nervous energy walking backwards and forwards trying frantically to tell if anyone is understanding what I’m talking about. I usually enjoy lecturing actually, but it’s definitely stressful at the time. Now that I’m Head of School I won’t get to do as much teaching in the future as I did in the past. I suppose I’ll miss that “contact” with students, but I don’t think their education will suffer at all as a consequence of not being taught by me!

This is graduation week at the University of Sussex; finalists from the School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences actually graduate tomorrow. In normal circumstances I would be there to read out the names as the graduands parade across the stage, but I committed to attend this Summer School long before I’d even been appointed to my job as Head of MPS so felt I shouldn’t leave the organizers in the lurch. The Deputy Head of School will therefore do the honours at tomorrow’s ceremony. I haven’t been there long enough to get to know the graduating class very well, so it’s quite fitting that he’s looking after them on the big day. In other words, I don’t think I’ll be missed. I also see that final year students from the School of Physics & Astronomy at Cardiff University will be graduating next Monday (15th July). I’ve known some of them for almost four years so feel a bit sad that I left before they finished, but I’m sure I won’t be missed on that occasion either. I bet most of them have already forgotten I was ever there!

Anyway, on the off chance that any graduating students from either Sussex or Cardiff happen to read this, I hope you enjoy the graduation ceremony and associated celebrations and wish you well as you embark on the next stage of life’s journey.

The Inflationary Bubble

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on July 9, 2013 by telescoper

The Summer School I’m attending on Inflation and the CMB got under way yesterday morning with a couple of lectures (90 minutes each) by Andrei Linde, one of the pioneers of the theory of cosmic inflation. I enjoyed the first part of the session, but then he went off into the technical details of a specific model for which there seemed previous little in the way of physical motivation or testable consequences. There’s an occupational hazard for people working on inflation which is that they become so absorbed by their calculations that they forget that they’re supposed to be doing science. It sometimes appears that this field has reached a critical density of activity which means that it’s in danger of forming a closed universe completely incapable of communicating with the world outside and perhaps of collapsing in on itself.

The other thing I didn’t like was the evangelism about the multiverse, which is widespread amongst theorists these days. I’ve stated my position about this before so I won’t repeat my objections here. I will, however, lodge an objection to the way Prof. Linde answered a question about whether the multiverse theory was a testable of various fine-tuning problems in cosmology by saying

Ihe multiverse is the only known explanation so in a sense it has already been tested.

I don’t mind particularly if theories are not testable with current technology. New ideas often have to wait a very long time before equipment and techniques are developed to test them, but Linde’s response is rather symptomatic of a frame of mind that does not consider testability important at all. The worst offenders in this regard are certain string theorists who seem to thing string theory is so compelling in its own right that it just has to be the one true description of how the Universe works, even if the framework it provides is unable to make any predictions at all.

IMG-20130708-00145

Open Journal of Astrophysics Revived

Posted in Open Access with tags , , , , , on July 8, 2013 by telescoper

Regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Bonkers) may recall that  while ago  I posted an item in which I suggested setting up The Open Journal of Astrophysics. The motivation behind this was to demonstrate that it is possible to run an academic journal which is freely available to anyone who wants to read it, as well as at minimal cost to authors. Basically, I want to show that it is possible to “cut out the middle man” in the process of publishing scientific research and that by doing it ourselves we can actually do it better. As people interested in this project will be aware, progress on this has been slower than I’d anticipated, largely because I changed job recently and have had so many administrative responsibilities that I haven’t had time to get too involved with it. The other folk who offered help have also been similarly preoccupied and some technical issues remain to be solved. However, the project has not been abandoned. Far from it. In fact, I’ve just received an update that strongly suggests we can get this idea off the ground over the course of the summer, so that it is in place in time for the new academic year.

We have a (good) website design with ample space and other resources to run it, and a significant number of persons of suitable eminence have agreed to serve on the Editorial Board. It will basically be a front-end for the Arxiv, but will have a number of interesting additional features which make it a lot  more than that.  I’d prefer to save further details to the official launch, which is now planned to take place in January (as it would probably get buried in the pre-Xmas rush if we tried to launch before then). I can also confirm that the service we will provide will be free at the start, although if the volume of submissions grows we may have to charge a small fee for refereeing. And when I say “small” I mean small, not the hundreds or thousands of pounds charged by the rip-off merchants.

There are, however, a couple of things I’d like to ask of my readers.

The first concerns the Editorial Board. I plan to contact those who offered help with this, but I’m still open to more volunteers. So, would anyone interested in getting involved – or at least thinking about getting involved please contact me via email. Also if you previously agreed please feel free to email to confirm your continued interest or, if you’ve changed your mind please let me know too.

The other thing  I would still like some ideas about is the name. I have asked about this before, but still haven’t settled on a compelling selection so I’m repeating the request here.

My working title for this project is The Open Journal of Astrophysics, which I think is OK but what I’d really like to do is break away from the old language of academic publishing as much as possible. I did think of the People’s Revolutionary Journal of Astrophysics, but feared that it might then split into Trotskyite and Marxist-Leninist factions. In any case the very name “journal” suggests something published periodically, whereas my idea is to have something that is updated continuously whenever papers are accepted. I’m therefore having second thoughts about having the word “Journal” in the title at all. Open Astrophysics might suffice, but I’m sure someone out there can come up with a better name. I know that Shakespeare said that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I think a good title might make the difference between success and failure for this initiative…

That gives me the idea of enlisting the help of the denizens of the internet for some help in coming up with a better title; given the nature of the project, this seems an entirely appropriate way of proceeding. So please engage in collective or individual brainstorming sessions and let me have your suggestions through the comments box!

Germany Calling…

Posted in Biographical, Books, Talks and Reviews, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on July 7, 2013 by telescoper

Just a quick post to break radio silence and announce my arrival in the picturesque town of Bad Honnef, spa town in Germany near Bonn in the Rhein-Sieg district of North Rhine-Westphalia. We’re right on the banks of the Rhine actually, and there are some fine views of castles and hills to be had all round.

To get here I took my life in my hands and flew with a German budget airline called Germanwings from Heathrow to nearby Bonn-Cologne airport. I mean it’s near to Bad Honnef, not to Heathrow. Apart from the fact that I had to queue for an hour at check-in because the staff apparently didn’t know how to operate the computer system, and the flight was delayed leaving because it was delayed on the way in, it wasn’t actually too bad; we arrived only about 25 minutes late and I was able to have a few beers and some food when I arrived at my destination.

The reason for this expedition is that I’m giving two lectures at the Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft (henceforth DPG) Summer School on Inflation and the CMB. The list of other speakers is very impressive so I assume that some form of administrative error is responsible for my invitation, and especially for the fact that I’ve got to give two lectures while everyone else is just giving one…

Anyway, it’s lovely weather here – although a little on the toasty side for my cold English blood – and I hope to get the chance to take a few pictures as well as some updates from the meeting. I also hope to find out why this place is called Bad Honnef. I know I’ve only been here a few hours, but it seems to me that, as Honnefs go, it’s really not bad at all…

Can a University be Democratic?

Posted in Education, Politics with tags , , , on July 6, 2013 by telescoper

Today I thought I’d pick up on a topic I mentioned in last week’s post about Simon Fanshawe, about University governance.

The Royal Charter which formed the University of Sussex way back in 1961 includes the following clauses:

1.         By this Charter there shall be constituted and founded a University by the name of ‘The University of Sussex’ (‘the University’).

2.         In this Charter: ‘Council’ means the Council of the University; ‘Regulations’ except when otherwise required by the context, means Regulations made pursuant to this Charter or the Statutes. ‘Statutes’ means the Statutes of the University set out in the Schedule.

3.         The objects of the University shall be to advance learning and knowledge by teaching and research to the benefit of the wider community.

7.         There shall be a Council of the University which shall be the governing body of the University and shall have the custody and use of the Common Seal and shall be responsible for the revenue and property of the University, its conduct and activities, and shall exercise all the University’s powers.

8          There shall be a Senate of the University which shall, subject to the general control and approval of the Council, be responsible for academic standards and the direction and regulation of academic matters.

9.         There shall be a Students’ Union of the University.

This makes it quite clear that  the Senate (on which I happen to sit) is specifically meant to focus on academic matters; see below for a comment on this.  The role of the Student’s Union is not specified at all in this document, although it should be said that there are student members of Senate and Council too.

The reason for including this in a blog post is that it demonstrates an organization formed in this way has to strike a difficult balance between, on the one hand, listening to staff and students when it comes to forming policy and, on the other, having an efficient and effective executive that can implement those policies. There are about 16,000 people working and studying at the University of Sussex (c. 13,000 students and c. 3,000 staff), most of whom are highly intelligent and independent-minded so there’s bound to be a divergence of opinion on almost any topic under discussion. Even if it were possible for everyone to get involved in the University’s governance, it’s inevitable that decisions will be made that run counter to some of the input.

Difficult balances that have to be struck in the governance of any organization, whether religious, administrative, commercial or educational. The Council of the University of Sussex is its supreme governing body and everyone who works here is in some way accountable to it. In turn, Council is accountable to its “stakeholders”, not just funding authorities and students, but the wider world; its Charter states that

The objects of the University shall be to advance learning and knowledge by teaching and research to the benefit of the wider community.

In a nutshell, a University is not a democracy. It can’t be, not unless “democracy” is defined in a very limited way. A university can employ some democratic structures, and may (for many reasons) desire to include as many people as possible in its governance, but in the end this is limited by the need for effective and efficient management. We can – and do – debate where this balance should lie, but anyone who has ever worked in a University will agree that if it were allowed to be run “democratically” by some of academic collective then the result would be a complete shambles. Democracy has to be balanced by the rule of law.

Similar issues apply further down the pecking order. Since I took over as Head of Mathematical and Physical Sciences here earlier this year, I have had a wide range of responsibilities for the School, including its finances, academic matters, and even health and safety. I’m not an autocrat, so I try to do things as democratically as possible within the constraints I have to work, but this democracy is necessarily limited. I like to keep staff informed about and involved in decisions, but I sometimes have to make decisions without any consultation at all. This can be because such a quick decision is required that there is no time to consult widely, or because there is some issue to do with confidentiality which means that it can’t be discussed in an open forum (including, e.g., email). More often, though, it is just because they pay me to be Head of School and its my job to take responsibility so staff working in the School can get on with what they are supposed to do without being inundated with requests for input from me on trivial things.

On the other hand there are things in  MPS that are extremely  democratic compared with other places I’ve worked. We have a  Joint Committee which gives students direct input into various aspects of School life. In particular, the School has ceded part of its building to form Student Spaces and given students a budget to manage them (i.e. choose furniture, equipment, etc). These are extremely popular and no doubt contribute a great deal to our healthy position in the National Student Satisfaction (NSS) Survey. I think it’s great to have students involved in this way, but we have to remember that students are not the only stakeholders in a University; we also have obligations to other bodies whose requirements may run counter to the wishes of the student body.

Anyway, these ramblings are given a bit of topicality by an item in the Times Higher recently about two student representatives on the University of Sussex Senate who resigned in protest against alleged lack of consultation by the University management. I was at the Senate meeting when they resigned, as well as the previous one where there was a lengthy discussion at which they and others were given an extremely good hearing despite the fact that the matter concerned was not to do with academic so wasn’t strictly speaking in the remit of Senate anyway.

Eventually Senate voted and the two students concerned were on the losing side. I’m sad that they subsequently decided to resign from Senate, although to be absolutely factual both were due to be replaced next academic year anyway so it was a pretty empty gesture.

The point is that democracy isn’t just about being given the chance to express your own views. It’s also about acknowledging that others might feel very differently and accepting the decision when it turns out that you lost the argument.