Archive for the The Universe and Stuff Category

Three New Publications at the Open Journal of Astrophysics

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 8, 2024 by telescoper

Time for another roundup of business at the  Open Journal of Astrophysics. This time I have three papers to announce, which brings the total we have published so far this year (Vol. 7) to 45 and the total published by OJAp to 160. We’re still on track to publish around 100 papers this year or more, compared to last year’s 50.

First one up, published on 3rd June 2024, is “Log-Normal Waiting Time Widths Characterize Dynamics” by Jonathan Katz of Washington University (St Louis, Missouri, USA). This paper presents a discussion of the connection between waiting time distributions and dynamics for aperiodic astrophysical systems, with emphasis on log-normal distributions.  This paper is in the folder marked High-Energy Astrophysical Phenomena.

Here is a screen grab of the overlay, which includes the abstract:

 

You can read the paper directly on arXiv here.

The second paper to present is “An Empirical Model For Intrinsic Alignments: Insights From Cosmological Simulations” by Nicholas Van Alfen (Northeastern University, Boston, USA), Duncan Campbell (Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA), Jonathan Blazek (Northeastern University), C. Danielle Leonard (Newcastle University, UK), Francois Lanusse (Université Paris-Saclay, France), Andrew Hearin (Argonne National Laboratory, USA), Rachel Mandelbaum (Carnegie Mellon University) and The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration.  This paper presents an extension of the halo model (specifically the Halo Occupation Distribution, HOD) to include intrinsic alignment effects for the study of weak gravitational lensing. This paper is in the folder marked Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics. It was published on Tuesday June 4th 2024.

The overlay looks like this:

 

 

You can read this paper directly on the arXiv here.

Last, but by no means least, comes  “Towards Cosmography of the Local Universe”  which proposes the multipoles of the distance-redshift relation as new cosmological observables that have a direct physical interpretation in terms of kinematical quantities of the underlying matter flow. This was also published on 4th June. The authors are Julian Adamek (IfA Zurich, Switzerland), Chris Clarkson (Queen Mary, London, UK), Ruth Durrer (Geneva, Switzerland), Asta Heinesen (U. Lyon, France & NBI Copenhagen, Denmark), Martin Kunz (Geneva), and Hayley J. Macpherson (Chicago, USA).

Here is a screengrab of the overlay:

 

 

To read the accepted version of this on the arXiv please go here. This paper is also in the folder marked Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics.
That’s it for this week. I aim to post another update next weekend.

 

 

Hintze Lecture

Posted in Biographical, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on June 6, 2024 by telescoper

With an hour or so to waste in Heathrow Airport I thought I’d just mention that yesterday I attended the 27th Hintze Lecture on the topic of Understanding supernova explosions with sophisticated computer simulations delivered by Prof. Adam Burrows (in the very same lecture theatre in which I gave my lecture the day before). I was also on the guest list  for a subsequent dinner in Christ Church College, which was very nice. Thanks to Stephen Smartt for that!

Anyway, I’m now on my way to Dublin (and then Maynooth) so I can vote in tomorrow’s Local and European Parliament elections before returning to Barcelona early next week after a (hopefully) restful weekend…

Flying Visit(s)

Posted in Biographical, Education, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , on June 2, 2024 by telescoper

So here I am, not in Barcelona. On Thursday night I flew to the fine city of Newcastle upon Tyne to act as external examiner for a PhD candidate. Since I knew I would be arriving quite late I stayed in a hotel near Newcastle Airport. It was just as well I did so because, it being Ryanair, I arrived even later than expected. On Friday morning I took the Metro from the Airport to Haymarket and spent the morning in the School of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics at Newcastle University ahead of the viva voce examination.

The PhD candidate was Alex Gough (pictured right, after the examination, with supervisor Cora Uhlemann). Cora being German we were treated to the tradition of successful PhD candidates having to wear a elaborate hat, after the examination (fortunately not during it). Some champagne was consumed, followed by dinner at a nice Indian restaurant on Clayton Street.

For those of you not familiar with how the PhD system works in the UK, it involves doing research into a particular topic and then writing up what you’ve done in a thesis. The thesis is a substantial piece of work, often in the region of 100,000 words (200 pages or so), which is then assessed by two examiners (one internal to the university at which the research was done, and one external). They read copies of the thesis and then the candidate has to defend it in an oral examination, which was what happened on Friday, after which they make a recommendation to the university about whether the degree should be awarded.

There aren’t many rules for how a viva voce examination should be conducted or how long it should last, but the can be as short as, say, 2 hours and can be as long as 5 hours or more. The examiners usually ask a mixture of questions, some about the details of the work presented and some about the general background. The unpredictable content of a viva voce examination makes it very difficult to prepare for, and it can be difficult and stressful for the candidate (as well as just tiring, as it can drag on for a long time). However, call me old-fashioned but I think if you’re going to get to call youself Doctor of Philosophy you should expect to have to work for it. Some might disagree.

Obviously I can’t give details of what went on in the examination except that it was quite long primarily because the thesis was very interesting and gave us lots to discuss. At the end internal examiner Danielle Leonard and I agreed to recommend the award of a PhD. In Newcastle as in other UK universities, the examiners simply make a recommendation to a higher authority (e.g. Board of Graduate Studies) to formally award the degree, but they almost always endorse the recommendation. I’ve never been sure exactly when a successful candidate is allowed to call themselves “Doctor”, actually, but congratulations to Dr Gough!

Anyway, the celebratory dinner ended just after Women’s International football match between England and France (which France won) had finished at St James’ Park and the Metro was consequently crammed full, but I got back to the hotel at a reasonable hour. Thank you to everyone in the group, especially Cora and Ian Moss, for being so friendly and making me feel so welcome during this brief visit.

Tomorrow I shall be heading to the part of not-Barcelona known as Oxford, where I believe there is a University of some sort, to give a lecture about which I’ll post more tomorrow.

R.I.P. Jasper Wall

Posted in R.I.P., The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on June 1, 2024 by telescoper

I have been asked to use the medium of this blog to pass on the sad news of the passing of Jasper Wall (left) who died on 28th March at White Rock, British Columbia, Canada.

Jasper Wall (who was Canadian by birth) began his career in Radio Astronomy in Toronto with Alan Yen. This included building a 320-MHz receiver, and carrying out absolute background measurements using a pyramidal horn. He subsequently chose Australia to continue his research, working on a receiver for Parkes Radio Telescope at CSIRO where he and John Bolton began a sky survey at hitherto unprecedented high frequency of 2.7 GHz. Wall’s survey discovered the extensive ‘flat-spectrum’ quasar population, the key to the relativistic beaming model of radio sources. His research at Parkes lasted over eight years and the statistical results of this work strongly favoured a “Big Bang” universe rather than the “Steady State” preferred by John Bolton, Fred Hoyle and Tommy Gold.

Wall was also part of the team which in 1969 brought the Apollo 11 moon landing via the Parkes Radio Telescope to an estimated 650 million TV viewers world wide. In 1974-1978 he was a member of Martin Ryle’s group at the MRAO Cambridge UK, continuing his research in active galaxy systems at both radio and optical wavelengths, plus submm and X-ray observations. He taught statistics to astronomy students at Cambridge, leading to his 2003 book with co-author Charles Jenkins, Practical Statistics for Astronomers.

Later on in his career, he became more involved in science administration. Joining the Royal Greenwich Observatory in 1979 as Head of Astrophysics and Astrometry Division, he continued research in optical and radio astronomy. In 1986 he became Director of the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes on La Palma for four years, and then Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory from 1995 until its closure in 1998. He was a Professor at Oxford University from 1998 to 2002, after which he retired, returned to Canada and took up an emeritus position at the University of British Columbia, where he continued to teach and supervise students.

Sub-Stellar Objects in the Euclid Early Release Observations

Posted in Euclid, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on May 31, 2024 by telescoper

I have a busy day in front of me here in Not-Barcelona so I thought I’d do a quick post sharing a video about the Euclid Early Release Observations (EROs) that came out last week. The press materials accompanying the release of the EROs and the science paper relating to this work, mention “freely floating planets”, but that doesn’t make sense in terms of the modern definition of a planet so here they are described as sub-stellar objects. The paper describing this work can be found on the arXiv here.

Is machine learning good or bad for the natural sciences?

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , on May 30, 2024 by telescoper

Before I head off on a trip to various parts of not-Barcelona, I thought I’d share a somewhat provocative paper by David Hogg and Soledad Villar. In my capacity as journal editor over the past few years I’ve noticed that there has been a phenomenal increase in astrophysics papers discussing applications of various forms of Machine Leaning (ML). This paper looks into issues around the use of ML not just in astrophysics but elsewhere in the natural sciences.

The abstract reads:

Machine learning (ML) methods are having a huge impact across all of the sciences. However, ML has a strong ontology – in which only the data exist – and a strong epistemology – in which a model is considered good if it performs well on held-out training data. These philosophies are in strong conflict with both standard practices and key philosophies in the natural sciences. Here, we identify some locations for ML in the natural sciences at which the ontology and epistemology are valuable. For example, when an expressive machine learning model is used in a causal inference to represent the effects of confounders, such as foregrounds, backgrounds, or instrument calibration parameters, the model capacity and loose philosophy of ML can make the results more trustworthy. We also show that there are contexts in which the introduction of ML introduces strong, unwanted statistical biases. For one, when ML models are used to emulate physical (or first-principles) simulations, they introduce strong confirmation biases. For another, when expressive regressions are used to label datasets, those labels cannot be used in downstream joint or ensemble analyses without taking on uncontrolled biases. The question in the title is being asked of all of the natural sciences; that is, we are calling on the scientific communities to take a step back and consider the role and value of ML in their fields; the (partial) answers we give here come from the particular perspective of physics

arXiv:2405.18095

P.S. The answer to the question posed in the title is probably “yes”.

Free Atkins!

Posted in Biographical, Education, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , on May 26, 2024 by telescoper

I took my first degree in the Natural Sciences Tripos at the University of Cambridge. This involved doing a very general first year comprising four different elements that could be chosen flexibly. I quickly settled on Physics, Chemistry and  Mathematics for Natural Sciences to reflect my A-level results but was struggling for the fourth. In the end I picked the one that seemed most like Physics, a course called Crystalline Materials. I didn’t like that at all, and wish I’d done some Biology instead – Biology of Cells and Biology of Organisms were both options – or even Geology, but I stuck with it for the first year.

Having to do such a wide range of subjects was very challenging. The timetable was densely packed and the pace was considerable. In the second year, however, I was able to focus on Mathematics and Physics and although it was still intense it was a bit more focussed. I ended up doing Theoretical Physics in my final year, including a theory project.

My best teacher at School, Dr Geoeff Swinden,  was a chemist (he had a doctorate in organic chemistry from Oxford University) and when I went to Cambridge I fully expected to specialisze in Chemistry rather than Physics. I loved the curly arrows and all that. But two things changed. One was that I found the Physics content of the first year far more interesting – and the lecturers and tutors far more inspiring – than Chemistry, and the other was that my considerable ineptitude at practical work made me doubt that I had a future in a chemistry laboratory. And so it came to pass that I switched allegiance to Physics, a decision I am very glad I made.

(It was only towards the end of my degree that I started to take Astrophysics seriously as a possible specialism, but that’s another story…)

Anyway, when I turned up at Cambridge over 40 years ago to begin my course, and having Chemistry as a probable end point, I bought all the recommended text books, one of which was Physical Chemistry by P.W. Atkins. I found a picture (above) of the 1982 edition which may well be the one I bought (although I vaguely remember the one I had being in paperback). I thought it was a very good book, and it has gone into many subsequent editions. I also found the Physical part of Chemistry quite straightforward because it is basically Physics. I even got higher marks in Chemistry in the first year than I did in Physics but that didn’t alter my decision to drop Chemistry after the first year. When I did so, I followed tradition and sold my copy to a new undergraduate along with the other books relating to courses that I dropped.

Yesterday I found out that Peter Atkins has decided to make one of his books available to download. The book concerned is however not the compendious tome I bought, but a shorter summary called Concepts in Physical Chemistry, which was published in 1995. This is no doubt a very useful text for beginning Chemistry students so I thought I’d pass on this information. You can download it here, although you have to do it chapter by chapter in PDF files.

P.S. Chemistry in Spanish is ‘Química’. Since Physics and Chemistry share the same building in the University of Barcelona, where I am currently working, I frequently walk past rooms with doors marked ‘Quim’ (but I have never taken the opportunity to enter one).

Three New Publications at the Open Journal of Astrophysics

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , on May 25, 2024 by telescoper

After a very busy and unusual week, it’s time to get back to normal with the usual  Saturday roundup of business at the  Open Journal of Astrophysics. If you want to know how many papers we have published so far this year (Vol. 7), the answer is 42. The total published by OJAp is now 157. We’re still on track to publish around 100 papers this year, possibly more, compared to last year’s 50.

All the members of this week’s trio are in the folder marked Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics, and indeed all three relate in one way or another to the topic of weak gravitational lensing.  All three were published on Wednesday 22nd May 2024.

First one up is “Joint constraints from cosmic shear, galaxy-galaxy lensing and galaxy clustering: internal tension as an indicator of intrinsic alignment modelling error” which is by Simon Samuroff (Northeastern U., USA), Andresa Campos (Carnegie Mellon U., USA), Anna Porredon (Bochum, Germany) and Jonathan Blazek (Edinburgh, UK).   A combined statistical approach to the identification of errors arising in cosmic shear analysis due to intrinsic alignments.

Here is a screen grab of the overlay, which includes the abstract:

You can read the paper directly on arXiv here.

The second paper to present is “A unified linear intrinsic alignment model for elliptical and disc galaxies and the resulting ellipticity spectra” by Basundhara Ghosh (Bangalore, India), with Kai Nussbaumer, Eileen Sophie Giesel & Björn Malte Schäfer (Heidelberg, Germany). It presents a discussion of the physical origin of intrinsic alignments of both elliptical and disk galaxies and the implications for cosmological studies

The overlay looks like this:

 

You can read this paper directly on the arXiv here.

The last paper of this batch is entitled “Neural style transfer of weak lensing mass maps”  and proposes a generative model for the mass-production of weak-lensing maps. The authors are Masato Shirasaki and Shiro Ikeda (both of the University of Tokyo, Japan)

Here is a screengrab of the overlay:

 

To read the accepted version of this on the arXiv please go here.
That’s all for now. I will do another update next week.

 

 

Searching for Luminous High-Redshift Galaxies with Euclid’s Early Release Observations

Posted in Euclid, The Universe and Stuff on May 24, 2024 by telescoper

As it’s Friday afternoon I thought I would share one of the little videos I mentioned in the previous post. It’s only just over a minute long but it is worth listening to, not least for the dulcet tones of Henry Joy McCracken as he explains the science.

The Euclid preprint related to this work can be found here.

Euclid Paper Day!

Posted in Barcelona, Euclid, Maynooth, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , on May 24, 2024 by telescoper

This morning’s arXiv update brought the expected deluge of preprints from Euclid. You can find details of all fifteen of the new articles here. Ten of them relate to the Early Release Observations of which five were announced yesterday and five last November. These are essentially byproducts of the testing and calibration phase of the Euclid mission rather than the main cosmological survey. ESA is making a series of short videos about these results which I will share on here from time to time.

Of more direct relevance to cosmologists such as myself are the following five reference papers:

The overview paper, led by Yannick Mellier (Euclid Consortium Lead), giving a general description of the mission capabilities and science goals, will be the main reference paper and just about every active member of the Euclid Consortium is on the author list (including myself). That’s over a thousand people, not quite at the level of the Large Hadron Collider but getting there. I do think we need to find a better way of giving credit to work in large collaborations than through authorship, but until someone comes up with a workable scheme, and people responsible for hiring researchers adopt it, we’re stuck with what we’ve got. At least I can say that I’ve read that paper (which is 94 pages long, including the author list)

Papers II-IV are technical articles relating to Euclid’s instruments and their calibration, which will also be important references for the survey part of the Euclid mission. Paper V is about the Flagship simulations and the mock catalogues produced therefrom; I discussed these a while ago here. It is led by Francisco Castander of Institut de Ciencies de l’Espai, who organized the meeting I attended recently here in Barcelona.

These papers now now be peer-reviewed and, assuming they are accepted, published in a special issue of Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A).