Archive for the The Universe and Stuff Category

Weekly Update from the Open Journal of Astrophysics – 18/10/2025

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 18, 2025 by telescoper

It’s time once again for the usual Saturday update of the week’s new papers at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Since the last update we have published four  more papers, which brings the number in Volume 8 (2025) up to 156, and the total so far published by OJAp up to 391.

I’d like to encourage people to follow our feed on the Fediverse via Mastodon (where I announce papers as they are published, including the all-important DOI) so this week I’ll include links to each announcement there.

The first paper to report is “Shot noise in clustering power spectra” by Nicolas Tessore (University College London, UK) and Alex Hall (University of Edinburgh, UK). This was published in the folder Cosmology and NonGalactic Astrophysics on Tuesday October 14th 2025. This presents a discussion of the effects of ‘shot noise’, an additive contribution due to degenerate pairs of points, in angular galaxy clustering power spectra. Here is a screen grab of the overlay:

You can find the officially accepted version of the paper here. The Mastodon announcement is here:

Open Journal of Astrophysics

New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Shot noise in clustering power spectra" by Nicolas Tessore (University College London, UK) and Alex Hall (University of Edinburgh, UK)

doi.org/10.33232/001c.145919

October 14, 2025, 7:07 am 2 boosts 0 favorites

Next one up is “The Giant Arc – Filament or Figment?” by Till Sawala and Meri Teeriaho (University of Helsinki, Finland). This paper discusses the abundance of large arc-like structures formed in the standard cosmological model, with reference to the “Giant Arc” identified in MgII absorption systems. It was published on Wednesday October 15th in the folder Cosmology and NonGalactic Astrophysics. The overlay is here:

The officially accepted version of this paper can be found on the arXiv here and the Mastodon announcement is here:

Open Journal of Astrophysics

New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "The Giant Arc – Filament or Figment?" by Till Sawala and Meri Teeriaho (University of Helsinki, Finland)

doi.org/10.33232/001c.145931

October 15, 2025, 6:33 am 2 boosts 3 favorites

 

The third paper this week,  published on Monday 6th October, is “Detecting wide binaries using machine learning algorithms” by Amoy Ashesh, Harsimran Kaur and Sandeep Aashish (Indian Institute of Technology, Patna, India). This was published on Friday 17th October (yesterday) in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies. It presents a method for detecting wide binary systems in Gaia data using machine learning algorithms.

The overlay is here:

 

You can find the officially accepted version of this paper on arXiv here. The announcement on Mastodon is here:

Open Journal of Astrophysics

New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Detecting wide binaries using machine learning algorithms" by Amoy Ashesh, Harsimran Kaur and Sandeep Aashish (Indian Institute of Technology, Patna, India)

doi.org/10.33232/001c.146027

October 17, 2025, 6:55 am 0 boosts 0 favorites

The last one this week is “Learned harmonic mean estimation of the Bayesian evidence with normalizing flows” by Alicja Polanska & Matthew A. Price (University College London, UK), Davide Piras (Université de Genève, CH), Alessio Spurio Mancini (Royal Holloway, London, UK) and Jason D. McEwen (University College London). This one was also published on Friday 17th October, but in the folder Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics; it presents a new method for estimating Bayesian evidence for use in model comparison, illustrated with a cosmological example.

The corresponding overlay is here:

 

You can find the officially accepted version on arXiv here. The Mastodon announcement is here:

Open Journal of Astrophysics

New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Learned harmonic mean estimation of the Bayesian evidence with normalizing flows" by Alicja Polanska & Matthew A. Price (University College London, UK), Davide Piras (Université de Genève, CH), Alessio Spurio Mancini (Royal Holloway, London, UK) and Jason D. McEwen (University College London)

doi.org/10.33232/001c.146026

October 17, 2025, 7:06 am 0 boosts 0 favorites

That concludes the papers for this week. With two weeks to go I think we might reach the 400 total by the end of October.

Calling all Irish weather and climate enthusiasts! 

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on October 16, 2025 by telescoper

Just a quick post to share an opportunity to get involved in a bit of Citizen Science. The inestimable Zooniverse has teamed up with Met Éireann, the Irish National Meteorological Service, in a project called Irish Weather Rescue. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to help digitize historical weather records that currently only exist on paper. Currently only a few percent of the available records have been digitised.

The project aims to provide access to valuable data that will improve our understanding of how rainfall patterns have changed over longer timescales and provide context for the changes we see in our current climate and possible future climate. Met Éireann’s archive contains an extensive collection of historical weather observations that include meteorological registers, rainfall registers, climatological reports, weather diaries, monthly weather bulletins and maps. These handwritten paper records are at risk of being lost due to the vulnerability of the original paper documents. By creating a digital copy of these records and extracting the data contained in them we can use the data to monitor climate variability and change, support effective climate risk management and improve climate model projections.

To read more about the project and/or volunteer, see here.

Weekly Update from the Open Journal of Astrophysics – 11/10/2025

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 11, 2025 by telescoper

It’s time once again for the usual Saturday update of the week’s new papers at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Since the last update we have published six  more papers, which brings the number in Volume 8 (2025) up to 152, and the total so far published by OJAp up to 387. Not only have we passed the 150 mark for the year, but this week saw another record for the Journal, in that it was the first week in which we published at least one paper on every day.

Anyway, here are this week’s papers:

The first paper is “Mapping the Nearest Ancient Sloshing Cold Front in the Sky with XMM-Newton” by Sheng-Chieh Lin (University of Kentucky) and 10 others based in the USA, Spain and Germany. This article, published on Monday 6th October 2025, in the section High-Energy Astrophysical Phenomena discusses cold fronts in the Virgo Cluster, their importance in shaping the thermal dynamics of the intracluster medium beyond the cluster core, and their implications for cluster cosmology.

The overlay is here:

 

The officially accepted version of this paper can be found on the arXiv here.

The second paper this week, also published on Monday 6th October, is “Testing gravitational physics by combining DESI DR1 and weak lensing datasets using the E_G estimator” by S.J. Rauhut (Swinburne University of Technology, Australia) and an international cast of 63 others. This one is in the folder Cosmology and NonGalactic Astrophysics, and it presents a comparison of  Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) measurements from BOSS, DESI with weak lensing from KiDS, DES and HSC showing that the results are altogether consistent with the standard cosmological model.

The overlay is here:

You can find the officially accepted version of this paper on arXiv here.

Next one up is “Analysis of Galaxies at the Extremes: Failed Galaxy Progenitors in the MAGNETICUM Simulations” by Jonah S. Gannon (Swinburne University, Australia), Lucas C. Kimmig (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Germany; LMU), Duncan A. Forbes (Swinburne), Jean P. Brodie (Swinburne), Lucas M. Valenzuela (LMU), Rhea-Silvia Remus (LMU), Joel L. Pfeffer (Swinburne) and Klaus Dolag (LMU). This paper, published on Tuesday 7th October 2025, in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies, discusses the business of identifying the possible high-redshift progenitors of low-redshift ultra-diffuse galaxies in cosmological simulations.

The corresponding overlay is here:

You can find the officially accepted version on arXiv here.

The fourth paper this week, published on Wednesday 8th October 2025 in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies,  is
What Sets the Metallicity of Ultra-Faint Dwarfs?” by Vance Wheeler, Andrey Kravtsov, Anirudh Chiti & Harley Katz (U. Chicago) and Vadim A. Semenov (CfA Harvard), all based in the USA.

The overlay is here:

You can find the officially-accepted version on arXiv here.

Next, and fifth, we have our 150th publication of 2025, “Synthesizer: a Software Package for Synthetic Astronomical Observables” by Christopher C. Lovell (Cambridge, UK), William J. Roper, Aswin P. Vijayan & Stephen M. Wilkins (Sussex, UK), Sophie Newman (Portsmouth, UK) and Louise Seeyave (Sussex). This paper presents a suite of software tools for creating synthetic astrophysical observables for use in mock galaxy catalogues. It was published on Thursday 9th October 2025 in the folder Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics.

The overlay is here:

You can find the officially accepted version on arXiv here.

And finally for this week we have “Introducing the THESAN-ZOOM project: radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of high-redshift galaxies with a multi-phase interstellar medium” by Rahul Kannan (York University, Canada) and 13 others based in the USA, Germany, Japan, Italy and the UK. This one was published on Friday 10th October (i.e. yesterday) in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies. It describes a comprehensive suite of high-resolution zoom-in simulations of high-redshift galaxies, encompassing a diverse range of halo masses, selected from the THESAN simulation volume.

The corresponding overlay is here:

You can find the officially accepted version of this one on arXiv here.

That concludes the papers for this week. I will, however, add a short postscript. This week saw the announcement of this year’s list of MacArthur Fellows. among them Kareem El-Badry who has published quite a few papers with the Open Journal of Astrophysics. His biography on the MacArthur Foundation page includes this:

He has published articles in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyThe Astrophysical Journal, and The Open Journal of Astrophysics, among other leading scientific journals.

I’m pleased to see us listed with the established names. I mention this just in case there are still people out there who think it might damage their career if they publish with a non-mainstream journal. I guess we are mainstream now…

Caveman Physics

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , on October 9, 2025 by telescoper

A colleague sent me this, so I thought I’d share it:

Of course we can’t be sure whether there’s a singularity or not because of the presence of a horizon…

Everyone wants something better than ΛCDM

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on October 8, 2025 by telescoper

There’s a nice short review article on arXiv today by Mike Turner. I wasn’t going to share it because it hasn’t got any pictures in it, but changed my mind.

Here is the abstract

The current cosmological paradigm, ΛCDM, is characterized (b) its expansive description of the history of the Universe, its deep connections to particle physics and the large amounts of data that support it. Nonetheless, ΛCDM’s critics argue that it has been falsified or must be discarded for various reasons. Critics and boosters alike do agree on one thing: it is the not the final cosmological theory and they are anxious to see it replaced by something better! I review the status of ΛCDM, provide my views of the path forward, and discuss the role that the “Hubble tension” might play.

arXiv:2510.05483

To make up for the lack of pictures in the article, here’s the first image that came up when I did a search for “ΛCDM”:

Nobel Prize for Physics Speculation

Posted in Biographical, Science Politics, The Universe and Stuff with tags , on October 6, 2025 by telescoper

Just to mention that tomorrow (Tuesday, October 7th 2025) will see the announcement of this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics. 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.

The announcement of the Nobel Prize for Physics on Tuesday is preceded today (Monday 6th) by the announcement of the Prize for Applications of Physics to Physiology or Medicine, and followed on Wednesday by the Prize for Applications of Physics to Chemistry. You can find links to all the announcements here.

I do, of course, already have a Nobel Prize Medal of my own already, dating from 2006, when I was lucky enough to attend the prize-giving ceremony and banquet.

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 19 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.

Regular readers of this blog may recall that I called it correctly in 2022 when Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger won the Nobel Prize for Physics that year. I had, however, predicted them every year for many years until they won, and they won’t win it again.

I drew a blank in 2023 when attosecond light pulses were the topic and was completely wrongfooted last 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.

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 probably would have done so by now.

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.

Feel free to make your predictions through the comments box below!

Update: I’m not often right but I was wrong again: the 2025 Nobel Prize for Physics goes 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”…

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2025/press-release/

Introducing Science Explorer (SciX)

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on October 5, 2025 by telescoper

I received an email about this over a week ago from Alberto Accomazzi (Director and Principal Investigator of the NASA Astrophysics Data System) and was going to post about it then but I was quite busy and it slipped my mind. I met Alberto at ENAM earlier this summer and he told me then this was in the pipeline so I should have remembered. Anyway, better late than never…

The email was to announce the formal launch of Science Explorer (SciX for short) on Monday 29th September 2025. SciX is meant to build on the excellence of ADS and expanding its coverage to accelerate astro-related research even further.

Here’s a screenshot of the home page set up in such a way as to take you, if you click on it, by a miracle of the internet, and at no extra charge, to the actual home page:

Feel free to go and check it out!

Here is some text from the email I mentioned:

So, what is the Science Explorer platform, or SciX? Think of it as your one-stop platform for exploring research across Earth, environmental and space sciences, including planetary science, heliophysics, geology, geophysics, atmospheric sciences and oceanography. From tracking solar storms, to uncovering the secrets of distant planets, to understanding the changing dynamics of our own Earth, SciX is designed to be your research co-pilot. You can find out more at scixplorer.org.

The people behind SciX would also love to know how NASA/ADS has supported your work so far and how SciX’s additional features will benefit the community. Your testimonial can be brief, in written or video form, and can be submitted via this form, or by email if easier. It is important to show your support in view of the challenges facing NASA these days. I think we tend to take services such as NASA/ADS for granted, but we’d all find our work much harder without them, so do please send a message of support.

P.S. You can find SciX on social media with the handle @SciXCommunity. Please give them a follow!

Weekly Update from the Open Journal of Astrophysics – 04/10/2025

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 4, 2025 by telescoper

It’s Saturday again, so it’s time for a summary of the week’s new papers at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Since the last update we have published five more papers, which brings the number in Volume 8 (2025) up to 146, and the total so far published by OJAp up to 381. At this rate Volume 8 will contain around 190 by the end of 2025.

Anyway, here are this week’s papers, starting with three published on Monday 29th September 2025.

The first paper is “Cosmic Multipoles in Galaxy Surveys II: Comparing Different Methods in Assessing the Cosmic Dipole” by Vasudev Mittal, Oliver T. Oayda and Geraint F. Lewis (U. Sydney, Australia). This is in the folder Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics. It presents a comparison of methods for determining the number count dipole from cosmological surveys with a discussion of the implications for the known discordance with the CMB diple.

The overlay is here:

You can make this larger by clicking on it.  The officially accepted version of this paper can be found on the arXiv here.

The second paper this week, also published on Monday 29th September, is “SDSS-C4 3028: the Nearest Blue Galaxy Cluster Devoid of an Intracluster Medium” by Shweta Jain (University of Kentucky, USA) and 11 others based in the USA, Australia and Korea. This describes a galaxy cluster with an unusually high fraction (about 63%) of star-forming galaxies which may be a result of ram pressure stripping; the article is in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies.

The corresponding overlay is here:

 

You can find the officially accepted version on arXiv here.

The third one this week, published on also published on Monday 29th September but in the folder Earth and Planetary Astrophysics, is “Comparing the Architectures of Multiplanet Systems from Kepler, K2, and TESS Data” by Robert L Royer and Jason H. Steffen (University of Nevada, USA).  This paper explores the trends seen in exoplanet survey data, including Kepler, TESS, and K2 including many planetary systems with multiple planets.

The overlay is here:

 

You can find the officially-accepted version on arXiv here.

The next one up is “Seeding Cores: A Pathway for Nuclear Star Clusters from Bound Star Clusters in the First Billion Years” by Fred Angelo Batan Garcia (Columbia University, USA), Massimo Ricotti (University of Maryland, USA) and Kazuyuki Sugimura (Hokkaido University, Japan). This paper was published on Thursday 2nd October in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies. This is about modelling the formation of Nuclear Star Clusters using cosmological radiation-hydrodynamic simulations, with discussion of the implications for seeding supermassive black holes and the little red dots seen by JWST.

The corresponding overlay is here:

You can find the officially accepted version of this one on arXiv here.

The fifth and last one for this week, published on Friday 3rd October 2025, is “Efficient semi-analytic modelling of Pop III star formation from Cosmic Dawn to Reionization” by Sahil Hegde and Steven R. Furlanetto (University of Californi Los Angeles, USA).  This is also in the folder marked Astrophysics of Galaxies. It uses a self-consistent analytic model to trace the formation of the first stars from their birth through the first billion years of the universe’s history. complementing semi-analytic and computational methods.

 

You can find the officially-accepted version of this paper on arxiv here.

That concludes the report for this week. I’ll post another update next Saturday.

Weekly Update from the Open Journal of Astrophysics – 27/09/2025

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 27, 2025 by telescoper

It’s Saturday again, so it’s time for a summary of the week’s new papers at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Since the last update we have published five new papers, which brings the number in Volume 8 (2025) up to 141, and the total so far published by OJAp up to 376.

The first paper to report this week is “The Bispectrum of Intrinsic Alignments: Theory Modelling and Forecasts for Stage IV Galaxy Surveys” by Thomas Bakx (Utrecht U., NL), Alexander Eggemeier (U. Bonn, DE), Toshiki Kurita (MPA Garching, DE), Nora Elisa Chisari (Leiden U., NL) and Zvonimir Vlah (Ruđer Bošković Institute, Croatia). This paper was published on Monday 22nd September 2025 in the folder Cosmology and NonGalactic Astrophysics. It studies the bispectrum of intrinsic galaxy alignments, a possible source of systematic errors in extracting cosmological information from the analysis of weak lensing surveys.

The overlay is here:

You can make this larger by clicking on it.  The officially accepted version of this paper can be found on the arXiv here.

The second paper this week, published on Tuesday 23rd September 2025 is “Reanalysis of Stage-III cosmic shear surveys: A comprehensive study of shear diagnostic tests” by Jazmine Jefferson (University of Chicago, USA) and 13 others for the LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. It is also in the folder Cosmology and NonGalactic Astrophysics; it describes diagnostic tests on three public shear catalogs (KiDS-1000, Year 3 DES-Y3 s, and Year 3 HSC-Y3); not all the surveys pass all the tests.

The corresponding overlay is here:

You can find the officially accepted version on arXiv here.

The third one this week, published on Wednesday 24th September 2025 in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies, is “Is feedback-free star formation possible?” by Andrea Ferrara, Daniele Manzoni, and Evangelia Ntormousi (all of the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy). This paper presents an argument that Lyman-alpha radiation pressure strongly limits star formation efficiency, even at solar metallicities, so that a feedback-free star formation phase is not possible without feedback. The overlay is here:

You can find the officially-accepted version on arXiv here.

Next we have “Microphysical Regulation of Non-Ideal MHD in Weakly-Ionized Systems: Does the Hall Effect Matter?” by Philip F. Hopkins (Caltech, USA), Jonathan Squire (U. Otago, New Zeland), Raphael Skalidis (Caltech) and Nadine H. Soliman (Caltech). This was also published on Wednesday 24th September 2025, but in the folder Earth and Planetary Astrophysics. It presents an improved treatment of non-ideal effects in magnetohydrodynamics, particularly the Hall effect, and a discussion of the implications for weakly-ionized astrophysical systems.

The corresponding overlay is here:

 

You can find the officially accepted version of this one on arXiv here.

The fifth, and last, one for this week is “The Local Volume Database: a library of the observed properties of nearby dwarf galaxies and star clusters” by Andrew B. Pace (University of Virginia, USA). This one was published on Friday 26th September (i.e. yesterday) in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies. It presents a catalogue of positional, structural, kinematic, chemical, and dynamical parameters for dwarf galaxies and star clusters in the Local Volume. The overlay is here:

You can find the officially-accepted version of this paper on arxiv here.

 

And that concludes the report for this week. I’ll post another update next Saturday.

R.I.P. George F. Smoot (1945-2025)

Posted in Biographical, R.I.P., The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , on September 26, 2025 by telescoper
George F. Smoot (1945-2025)

I’m very sad to have to report the death, at the age of 80, of eminent cosmologist George Smoot, who passed away at his home in Paris on 18th September. The news has been reported in France, where George had been living in recent years, but doesn’t seem to have been covered in the international media yet. I thought I would just record some personal relfections and reminiscences here, rather than try to pre-empt the official biographies.

George Smoot was an experimental astrophysicist who is best known for his research in observational cosmology, particularly on the cosmic microwave background. In 2006, jointly with John Mather, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for measurements made by the COBE satellite that, without exaggeration, ushered in a new era of cosmology. George led the paper Structure in the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometer First-Year Maps that reported the first detection of variations in temperature of the cosmic microwave background across the sky predicted by theories of cosmological structure formation.

I was fortunate enough to meet George many times over the years and to get to know him quite well. The first time was at a meeting in Durham for which this was the conference photo:

George is just to the left of centre in the front row with the red-and-white sweater.

What I remember about that meeting is that I gave a contributed talk there (a short one, because I was a mere postdoc at the time). Some time after that, George Smoot gave an invited talk during the course of which he mentioned (positively) the work I had spoken about. I was gobsmacked to have my little contribution recognized by someone so eminent, and it did wonders for my scientific self-confidence. I got the chance to have a conversation with George in person some time later at that meeting and found him very good value: he was both interesting and amusing to talk to. He was someone who took mentorship seriously, and didn’t confine it to those people he was working with directly.

Over the years I met George regularly at scientific meetings, including numerous times at the (then) Daniel Chalonge schools in Sicily and in Paris where we often chatted about science and other things over coffee breaks and dinner. I always found him hugely knowledgeable about many things, but he also had an almost child-like curiosity about things he didn’t previously know. He didn’t quite jump up and down with excitement when he learnt something interesting, but almost. He could also be very direct when disagreeing, which meant that some people found him a bit abrasive. He fell out with other members of the COBE time when he threw away the agreed protocol for the announcement of results in 1992. That caused a lot of bad feeling at the time, but it seems that by the time the Nobel Prize was awarded, some degree of reconciliation had been achieved. I was lucky enough to attend the Prize Ceremonies and at the ball afterwards chatted with both George and John Mather who seemed on very amiable terms then.

Anyway, in the early noughties George invited me to spend some time at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, a visit that I enjoyed enormously. He was a very generous and thougtful host and I was looked after very well. One day at LBL he asked me if the hotel was OK. I replied that it was, but one thing I didn’t like about staying in a hotel was that I liked to cook and that was impossible in a hotel room. I thought nothing more of that conversation until the end of the day when George appeared and asked me if I wanted to “do dinner” at his house that evening. I answered in the affirmative so he drove me to his house, which was very fancy, set into the hillside overlooking Berkeley – like the sort of place I imagine a film star would live – and had a very large and well-provisioned kitchen.

It soon became clear that I’d misunderstood the invitation, in that “do dinner” didn’t mean “eat dinner” but “make dinner”. Although I was slightly taken aback I set about finding what he had in the refrigerator and on the shelves. There being a plentiful supply of spices, I decided to make a tandoori-style dish of chicken baked with yoghurt, with a couple of side dishes, none of which took long to cook. When everything was getting ready I wanted to add some lemon juice but couldn’t find any lemons in the fridge. I asked George if he had any lemons, at which point he showed me into the garden where he had several lemon trees in full fruit. I’ve never lived anywhere that this would be possible! I think he enjoyed the dinner because he paid me back a few days later with a dinner at Chez Panisse. He was quite the bon viveur.

(After that short visit, I was planning to spend a sabbatical year in Berkeley in 2005, but the United States Embassy in London put paid to that idea and I went to CITA in Toronto instead.)

The last encounters I had with George were online; he was in the audience when I gave talks in the Chalonge-de Vega series organized by Norma Sanchez in 2021 (here and here). I think he had already moved to Paris by that time. The first of these talks was about open access publishing in astrophysics; George subsequently co-authored a paper in the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

My favourite quote from George came during a discussion we had at Berkeley when I suggested that some methods used for studying the cosmic microwave background could be applied to the distribution of galaxies. His response was “Galaxies are shit”. To avoid offending my friends who work on galaxies, what he meant by that was that he thought galaxies were too messy for any statistical measurements to sufficiently reliable to compete with the CMB. I think he would have preferred a universe in which all galaxies were identical, like electrons.

I’m sure many others will have their own personal reflections on their interactions with George Smoot, but he also had a huge influence on many people who never met him personally, through his enormous contributions to astrophysics and cosmology. We will no doubt read many professionally-written official obituaries in days to come, but all I can say in a personal blog post is that he was a character, a very original thinker, a fine scientist, and a very nice man. Along with many others, I will miss him enormously.

Rest in Peace, George Fitzgerald Smoot III (1945-2025) .

Update: Here is an `In Memoriam’ piece from from the Berkeley Lab.