It’s Saturday morning once again so it’s time for the usual weekly update of publications at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. This week’s report will be short because, like last week, there is only one paper to report this week, being the 106th paper in Volume 7 (2024) and the 221st altogether. It was published on Thursday 28th November 2024. We have some more papers in the publishing pipeline, which I thought might appear, but they didn’t come out this week possibily because of the Thanksgiving holiday in the USA.
Anyway, The title of the latest paper is “Growth of Light-Seed Black Holes in Gas-Rich Galaxies at High Redshift” by Daxal Mehta, John Regan and Lewis Prole (all of the National University of Ireland, Maynooth*. This paper presents a discussion of the rate of growth of black holes in the early Universe on the basis of simulations run using the Arepo code.
Here is the overlay of the paper containing the abstract:
You can click on the image of the overlay to make it larger should you wish to do so. You can also find the officially accepted version of the paper on the arXiv here.
That’s all for this week – tune in next Saturday for next week’s update!
*The authors being from Maynooth, I of course recused myself from the editorial process for this article.
Today friend of mine send me a message pointing out that in order to save money the University of Sussex is planning to make about 300 staff redundant; you can see an article about it in the Times Higher here. For the time being it seems the plan to make these savings via a voluntary severance scheme. I don’t know whether academic and administrative staff will be treated equally, either.
This is grim news. I worked at Sussex from 2013 until 2016 when I resigned my post as Head of School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. I took that decision largely for personal reasons but there were professional reasons too. From 2013 the University had embarked on an ambitious growth plan based on buoyant student numbers and the fee income generated thereby. Staff numbers grew too, to cope with the increased demand for teaching. Unfortunately the management was unable to match this with real improvements in infrastructure, largely due to the disastrous outsourcing of campus estates and services. Many promises made to me as Head of School by Senior Management were broken. I wasn’t the only Head of School to compain of this, either. Although things were still going relatively well when I left in 2016, and I was optimistic for the future of the School then, there were severe risks to its financial stability if student recruitment dived. Sadly, that’s exactly what happened. Falling student numbers – especially from overseas – left the institution very vulnerable, especially since the fee per student did not change. That problem was exacerbated by a burst of inflation. AlthoughIt has clearly been a very difficult time for the University of Sussex, largely due to national and international forces beyond its control, but exacerbated by ineffective, and at times incompetent, institutional management. It should be said also that many University leaders enthusiastically embraced the fees-based system that has led their institutions where they are now, though most of them have now departed and left others to carry the can.
It worries me that Maynooth University is also trying to grow very quickly, without adequate investment in infrastructure especially teaching. It isn’t increasing the number of academic staff much either, preferring to hire more and more managers; yet another such position was advertised this week. I don’t know whether Maynooth’s financial trajectory will follow that of Sussex. The funding environment is very different in Ireland compared to the UK, so it may not. It is clear that the enviroment for education and research here is being steadily degraded by the current leadership.
Anyway, when I saw the announcement about Sussex, I checked other Universities I’ve worked in over the years. There’s a list here. It seems that while there are particular factors at play at Sussex, there are similar difficulties across the Board. Cardiff University has a deficit of £35 million and the VC has refused to rule out compulsory redundancies there. I’m not sure how this is all affecting the School of Physics & Astronomy. Nottingham University, where I worked from 1999 to 2007, has deficit of £30 million, in response to which it has opened a voluntary severance scheme, introduced hiring freezes, cut non-pay budgets, and refused to renew 500 fixed-term contracts.
There certainly are cold winds blowing across the University landscape in the United Kingdom, and there is no sign of any respite. This is just the start.
We’re in Week 9 of teaching in the Autumn Semester at Maynooth University, which means we’ve got one eye on the forthcoming Examination Period, which starts on 10th January 2025. Examination papers have already been prepared in draft form, and are now being checked ahead of printing. A draft examination timetable has also been released to staff, but not yet to students in case it has to be revised because of clashes.
I’m still on schedule with both my modules to finish the actual content in time to do use the last week for revision classes, going through past examination papers and generally helping the students prepare for the ordeals of January. There is a continuously-assessed component of both my modules, which counts 20% of the overall grade. One purpose of these assignments is to give the students some practice at the sort of problems they might encounter in the examinations: if they can do the assignments, they shouldn’t be too fazed by the examination questions. The purpose of the coursework is not just about passing examinations, however. I think the only way really to learn about mathematical physics is by doing it; the coursework is at least as important as the lectures and tutorials in terms of actually learning the subject. I think that modern higher education involves drastic over-assessment. Too much emphasis on grades and scores can be detrimental to real learning, but assessment that is formative can be extremely beneficial. Continuous assessment provides a way to give feedback to students on how they are doing, and to lecturers on how well the message is getting across; giving grades to such coursework is really just an incentive to the students to do it. It’s not primarily intended to be summative.
Anyway, back to examinations. One big difference between our examinations in Theoretical Physics in Maynooth and those at other institutions at which I’ve taught (in the UK) is that most of the papers here offer no choice of questions to be answered. Elsewhere it is quite common to find a choice of two or three questions from four or five on the paper. In my module on Differential Equations and Complex Analysis, for example, there are four questions on the examination paper and students have to do all of them for full marks.
One advantage of our system is that it makes it much harder for students to question-spot in the hope that they can get a good grade by only revising a fraction of the syllabus. If they’re well designed, a few longish questions can cover most of the syllabus for a module, which they have to in order to test all the learning outcomes. To accomplish this, questions can be split into parts that may be linked to each other to a greater or lesser extent in order to explore the connections between different ideas, but also sufficiently separate that a student who can’t do one part can still have a go at others. With such a paper, however, it is a dangerous strategy for a student to focus only on selected parts of the material in order to pass.
As an examiner, the Maynooth style of examination also has the advantage that you don’t have to worry too much if one question turns out to be harder than the others. That can matter if different students attempt different questions, as students might be penalized if they chose a particularly hard one, but not if everyone has to do everything.
But it’s not just the number of questions that’s important, it’s the duration. I’ve never felt that it was even remotely sensible for undergraduate physics examinations to be speed tests, which was often the case when I was a student. Why the need for time pressure? It’s better to be correct than to be fast, I think. I always try to set examination questions that could be done inside two hours by a student who knew the material, including plenty of time for checking so that even a student who made a mistake would have time to correct it and get the right answer. If a student does poorly in this style of examination it will be because they haven’t prepared well enough rather than because they weren’t fast enough.
We’re about two-thirds of the way into the Autumn Semester here at Maynooth and, by a miracle, I’m just about on schedule with both the modules I’m teaching. It’s always difficult to work out how long things are going to need for explanation when you’re teaching them for the first time.
One of the modules I’m doing is Differential Equations and Transform Methods for Engineering Students. I’ve been on the bit following the “and” for a couple of weeks already. The first transform method covered was the Laplace transform, which I remember doing as a physics undergraduate but have used only rarely. Now I’m doing Fourier Series, as a prelude to Fourier transforms.
As I have observed periodically, the differential equations and transform methods are not at all disconnected, but are linked via the heat equation, the solution of which led Joseph Fourier to devise his series in Mémoire sur la propagation de la chaleur dans les corps solides (1807), a truly remarkable work for its time that inspired so many subsequent developments.
In the module I’m teaching, the applications are rather different from when I taught Fourier series to Physics students. Engineering students at Maynooth primarily study electronic engineering and robotics, so there’s a much greater emphasis on using integral transforms for signal processing. The mathematics is the same, of course, but some of the terminology is different from that used by physicists.
Anyway I was looking for nice demonstrations of Fourier series to help my class get to grips with them when I remembered this little video recommended to me some time ago by esteemed Professor George Ellis. It’s a nice illustration of the principles of Fourier series, by which any periodic function can be decomposed into a series of sine and cosine functions.
This reminds me of a point I’ve made a few times in popular talks about astronomy. It’s a common view that Kepler’s laws of planetary motion according to which which the planets move in elliptical motion around the Sun, is a completely different formulation from the previous Ptolemaic system which involved epicycles and deferents and which is generally held to have been much more complicated.
The video demonstrates however that epicycles and deferents can be viewed as the elements used in the construction of a Fourier series. Since elliptical orbits are periodic, it is perfectly valid to present them in the form of a Fourier series. Therefore, in a sense, there’s nothing so very wrong with epicycles. I admit, however, that a closed-form expression for such an orbit is considerably more compact and elegant than a Fourier representation, and also encapsulates a deeper level of physical understanding. What makes for a good physical theory is, in my view, largely a matter of economy: if two theories have equal predictive power, the one that takes less chalk to write it on a blackboard is the better one!
Anyway, soon I’ll be moving onto the complex Fourier series and thence to Fourier transforms which is familiar territory, but I have to end the module with the Z-transform, which I have never studied and never used. That should be fun!
It has been an unusually mild November until today, when it has suddenly turned colder and wetter. This alteration does not seem to have pleased Maynooth University Library Cat.
Just a quick post to point out that today is LGBTQIA+ STEM Day, which aims to celebrate to celebrate the work of LGBTQIA+ people in science, technology, engineering, and maths (STEM), but also to highlight the barriers still facing us.
I noticed this morning that the Guardian has decided no longer to post on X, the far-right propaganda outlet formerly known as Twitter. Since Elon Musk’s takeover the site has become increasingly toxic; see this post from months ago.
As I have explained before, I left Twitter/X at the end of August 2023 and haven’t looked back. The above image is appearing more and more frequently around the world of social media. Many of my friends and colleagues have quit too, most of them setting up accounts on Bluesky and/or Mastodon. I have noticed a particularly significant influx of new followers on Bluesky. I don’t have as many followers there as I did on Twitter, but the quantity and quality of engagement is higher.
It’s not just the systematic amplification of hateful tweets from a variety of antisocial bigots, nor the reinstatement of noxious individuals previously banned for such conduct, nor the deluge of porn bots and other automated gibberish nor the scrapping of virtually all forms of moderation. It’s also that Elon Musk himself has used his own site to endorse explicitly anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Everyone who puts anything on Twitter nowadays is providing revenue that feeds this maelstrom of hate. How a decent individual can in good conscience remain on that site is beyond me.
But that’s not the point of this post. Virtually every public institution I know – including universities – continues to maintain a presence on Twitter/X for self-promotion despite that platforms deliberate and sustained violation of what purport to be their institutional values. Only a small number of institutions have acted according to their own ethics by quitting Musk’s platform, including the University of Luxembourg. Those still on, including my employer, are, in my opinion, displaying gross hypocrisy.
Why are so many universities still supporting Twitter/X? I suppose it may be because many of them have specifically employed staff to broadcast news about themselves on this platform and without it they’d have nothing to do. That’s not a very good argument, in my opinion. I’m sure other bullshit jobs can be found. Another possibility, of course, is that they just don’t care. Given the prevalence of toxic management in higher education these days, this may well be the real reason. Whatever the reason I find it deeply shaming to be working for an institution that is still happy to tout for trade in a neo-Nazi chatroom.
Any institution worried that there is no viable alternative to Twitter/X should consider setting up on the Fediverse. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, for example, already has its own Mastodon instance. The advantage of the Fediverse is that the owners of each server can apply their own policies. I’d like to see a future in which all universities, national agencies, and other public research institutions, set up their own Mastodon instances instead. That would create a very exciting environment for the exchange of news and information which would be a more than adequate replacement for academic Twitter/X.
As it turns out, the decision has not been reversed but, in a truly bizarre step, the scheme is to be paused for a “review” with the possibility that applications would be opened in June 2025 for PhDs starting in October 2025. The vast majority of qualified students intending to do PhDs will have accepted offers elsewhere by then so effectively the scheme is cancelled for 2025. Only students not able to secure a place elsewhere will be around to apply in June. A sensible decision would be to keep the scheme going until the review is complete, but clearly the University bosses want to divert the funds elsewhere. Perhaps the money saved will go towards the €500k luxury limousine service for self-defined VIP managers currently out to tender. Who knows?
Anyway, the decision and the manner in which it has been imposed by the University Executive is highly objectionable (though I’m afraid typical of the regime at Maynooth). Along with the union to which I belong, IFUT, I am therefore happy to support the Postgraduate Workers’ Organization (PWO) in their campaign on this issue. Please consider signing the petition either using the QR code or by following the link here.
Amid all the excitement last week I forgot that it was the sixth teaching week of the Semester. That means that we’re now past the halfway point. Among other things that meant that examination papers were due in on Friday (8th November). That means two papers for each module I’m teaching, one to be sat in January and another for the repeat opportunity in August, so that’s four altogether.
I always find setting examination questions very difficult. In theoretical physics we want to stretch the stronger candidates at the same time as allowing the weaker ones to show what they can do. It’s a perennial problem how to make the questions neither too easy nor too difficult, but it is compounded this time by the fact that I’m teaching two modules for the very first time so judging the right level is tricky.
Another issue is that I’m once again in a situation in which I have to set examination papers without having taught all the material. At least I’ve covered the first half of the content so I have some idea of what the students found difficult, but that’s not the case for the second half. It should be a bit easier next year once I’ve experience of covering the whole syllabus. Assuming, of course, that I’m teaching the same modules again next year, which is by no means guaranteed…
I’m teaching a module on Differential Equations and Complex Analysis for 4th year students and just about ready to switch to the part that comes after the and. I taught a bit of Complex Analysis when I was at Sussex and I’m quite looking forward to it, although it does pose a particular challenge. Some of the class are doing a Double Major in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, and have done quite a lot of Complex Analysis before, while others are doing a Single Major in Theoretical Physics and haven’t really done any. I have to somehow find a way to satisfy these two different groups. The only way I can think of to do that is to teach the subject as a physicist rather than a pure mathematician, with an emphasis on examples and real-world applications rather than in the abstract. We’ll see how this works out over the next few weeks.
P.S. On the subject of Complex Analysis, I just remembered this post from a few years ago.
Today I attended a (mandatory) training workshop relating to the Developmental Review, a process which is aims to “help to align the objectives of the Reviewee with the goals of the Unit* and with those of the University” and “to develop the capability of all staff, by focussing on the employee’s current role and their future career plans”. In other words, it’s a Staff Appraisal scheme.
Basically the reviewee discusses goals for the next couple of years with the reviewer and identify any training or other needs that would help achieve those goals. The two meet again at the end of the review period to see whether the goals have been reached and agree aims for the next couple of years. And so on.
I have, in a previous existence, been involved with conducting appraisals as a reviewer as well as participating as a reviewee, and found the experience reasonably positive because it is reviewee-led and focussed on career development rather than being tied to pay. This time round, however, the only career development goal on the horizon for me is retirement so I’m not sure I’ll get much out of it unless someone can suggest a way of bringing the date forward…
*Don’t ask me what “the goals of the Unit” are. I have no idea.
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.
In the Dark 