Archive for the The Universe and Stuff Category

Cosmology Talks: Eva-Maria Mueller on the last (e)BOSS Data Release

Posted in The Universe and Stuff, YouTube with tags , , , , on July 20, 2020 by telescoper

Today is another big day for cosmology as the last and final – why do people say that? – data release from the Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS) is now available. That is the culmination of 20 years of effort with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Here is a pretty picture showing the enormous scales probed by the survey:

There is an overview paper on the cosmological implications of the survey on the arXiv here. Fortunately, the latest Cosmology Talk on the YouTube channel of Shaun Hotchkiss features a very interesting presentation by Eva-Maria Mueller who is the first author of that paper:

 

Poll – The Hubble Constant: High or Low?

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , on July 17, 2020 by telescoper

Given yesterday’s news from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, among other things suggesting a low value of the Hubble constant of around 67.6 km s-1 Mpc-1, it might be fun to run another totally unscientific poll about which of the two Hubble constant camps has the most support in the community. The two camps are:

  • A `high’ value H0 ~ 73.5 ± 1.5 km s-1 Mpc-1 (as favoured by most stellar distance indicators, i.e. `local’ measurements).
  • A `low’ value H0 ~ 67.5 ± 0.5 km s-1 Mpc-1 (as favoured by most `cosmological’ estimates, e.g. cosmic microwave background fluctuations).

Of course you might also believe that both are wrong and the `true’ result lies outside both error regions but I’d like to focus on these two possibilities, so the question is posed assuming that one of them is right, which one is that most likely to be. In your opinion. Humble or otherwise.

 

New Results from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope!

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on July 16, 2020 by telescoper

There’s some excitement in cosmological circles with the announcement of new results from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, which is situated in the Atacama Desert in Chile. The two papers describing the new results can be found on the arXiv here and here and the data set will be made available here (it is Data Release 4; or DR4 for short).

If you want a laugh, the structure in the above map is on arc-minute scales – exactly the sort of thing I was trying to simulate way back in the 1980s. Here’s an ancient monochrome plot! The contours show 1σ, 2σ and 3σ fluctuations above the mean rather than the full distribution shown in the map above.

The full results will be discussed at a Zoom presentation at 11am Eastern Time (4pm Irish Time). I suspect it will be very busy so you will have to register in advance.

UPDATE: The Webinar is over but was recorded. I will post a link to the video when it is available. You can then guess which question was mine!

The new results from ACTPol are consistent with those from Planck, even down to the colour scheme used for the map, but the line taken by most media presentations I’ve seen (e.g. here and here) has been the issue of the Hubble Constant. The value of around 67.6 km s-1 Mpc-1 obtained by the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, though consistent with Planck measurements, is lower than most distance-scale measurements of H0. The dichotomy between `low’ estimates from cosmological observations and `high’ values persists.

This gives me an excuse to include my poll again:

There have been nearly a thousand responses so far, with opinion very divided.

The burning question however is when will face masks featuring the above map be made available for purchase? It could be a nice little earner…

The Cosmological Evidence – 25 Years Ago

Posted in Biographical, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on July 15, 2020 by telescoper

Today Facebook reminded me that the picture below is now 25 years old. I have posted it before and it has done the rounds at a number of cosmology conferences (usually to the accompaniment of lots of laughter), but I thought I’d circulate again as a bit of nostalgia and also to embarrass all concerned with this image. The picture was taken at a graduate school in cosmology in Leiden (in The Netherlands) in July 1995. In my memory that was a sweltering hot summer, which is my excuse for the informality of my attire.

Anyway, various shady characters masquerading as “experts” were asked by the audience of graduate students at a summer school to give their favoured values for the cosmological parameters. from from top to bottom these are:

  • the Hubble constant H0;
  • density parameter Ω0 (not split into dark matter and `ordinary’  matter as is now customary);
  • cosmological constant Λ0,
  • curvature parameter k
  • and age of the Universe t0.

 

From left to right we have Alain Blanchard (AB), Bernard Jones (BJ, standing), John Peacock (JP), me (yes, with a beard and a pony tail – the shame of it), Vincent Icke (VI), Rien van de Weygaert (RW) and Peter Katgert (PK, standing). You can see on the hi-tech digital display screen blackboard that the only one to get anywhere close to correctly predicting the parameters of what would become the standard cosmological model was, in fact, Rien van de Weygaert. Actually he was the only one of us to include a non-zero cosmological constant. My own favourite model at the time was a low-density model with negative spatial curvature.

Nobody is suggesting that panel discussions are the right way to settle scientific questions, of course, but it is interesting to see the diversity of opinions that were around in 1995.

P.S. Note that not all the combinations of parameters presented there are consistent with a Friedman model, but nobody said they had to be!

 

Cosmology Examination Results

Posted in Education, Maynooth, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on July 14, 2020 by telescoper

The examination season in Maynooth being now over, and the results having been issued, I thought I’d pass on the results not for individual students but for the Universe as a whole.

As you can see Dark Energy is top of the class, with a good II.1 (Upper Second Class). A few years ago this candidate looked likely to get a mark over 70% and thus get First Class Honours, but in the end fell just short. Given the steady performance and possible improvement in future I think this candidate will probably be one to reckon with in a future research career.

In second place, a long way behind on about 27%, is Dark Matter. This candidate only answered some of the questions asked, and those not very convincingly. Although reasonably strong on theory, the candidate didn’t show up at all in the laboratory. The result is a fail but there is an opportunity for a repeat at a future date, though there is some doubt as to whether the candidate would appear.

At the bottom of the class on a meagre 5% we find Ordinary Matter. It seems this candidate must have left the examination early and did not even give the correct name (baryons) on the script. Technically this one could repeat but even doing so is unlikely even to get an Ordinary Degree. I would suggest that baryons aren’t really cut out for cosmology and should make alternative plans for the future.

 

P.S. Photons and neutrinos ceased interacting with the course some time ago. Owing to this lack of engagement they are assumed to have dropped out, and their marks are not shown.

 

 

 

 

Viva Zoom!

Posted in Biographical, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on July 13, 2020 by telescoper

They say that there’s a first time for everything and this morning I conducted my first ever viva voce examination as an External Examiner via Zoom. Given the Covid-19 restrictions it was inevitable that I’d have to do this at some point! As it turned out candidate in question happened to be at University College London.

For those of you not familiar with how this sort of examination usually works, at least in the UK and Ireland, a PhD 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 write preliminary reports assessing its suitability. Then the candidate has to defend the thesis in an oral examination, which was what happened today, after which the examiners make a final 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 yourself Doctor of Philosophy you should expect to have to work for it.

As it happens, my own PhD examination (almost 30 years ago!)  was quite long (about 4hrs 30 minutes) and my external examiner was John Peacock. Today’s was a bit shorter – around three hours – and the internal examiner was Andrew Pontzen. Obviously I can’t give details of what went on in the examination except that the internal examiner Andrew Pontzen and I agreed to recommend the award of a PhD to the candidate, Krishna Naidoo. Although it was slightly strange doing this over Zoom instead of in person, it worked out OK. The only thing really missing was a blackboard or whiteboard. I also found it a bit awkward having the PDF thesis and videoconference on the same screen, but that was my fault for not appropriating a spare monitor.

At UCL as in most UK universities, the PhD examiners simply make a recommendation to a higher authority (e.g. Board of Graduate Studies) to formally award the degree, but only in very rare and peculiar circumstances do they not follow the recommendation.

The sad thing about these times of social distancing is that not being there in person I couldn’t shake the hand of the candidate at the end of the examination nor could I join him and his friends and colleagues for a drink afterwards. I’m sure they’ll find a way of celebrating. I couldn’t even join them remotely as I had another Zoom call to make. ..

P.S. If you want an idea of what is in  Krishna’s thesis you could have a look at one of the papers to come from it.

The Joy of Penguin Faeces

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on July 4, 2020 by telescoper

Last night my attention was drawn to an important article on the ArXiv in the domain of biophysics. The title is Projectile Trajectory of Penguin’s Faeces and Rectal Pressure Revisited*.

Here is the abstract:

We discuss a trajectory of penguins’ faeces after the powerful shooting due to their strong rectal pressure. Practically, it is important to see how far faeceses reach when penguins expel them from higher places. Such information is useful for keepers to avoid the direct hitting of faeceses. We estimate the upper bound for the maximum flight distance by solving the Newton’s equation of motion. Our results indicate that the safety zone should be 1.34 meters away from a penguin trying to poop in typical environments. In the presence of the viscous resistance, the grounding time and the flying distance of faeces can be expressed in terms of Lambert W function. Furthermore, we address the penguin’s rectal pressure within the hydrodynamical approximation combining Bernoulli’s theorem and Hagen-Poiseuille equation for viscosity corrections. We found that the calculated rectal pressure is larger than the estimation in the previous work.

That is amusing enough (though admittedly the English isn’t great) but the diagrams are an absolute joy!

*In case you’re wondering about the “revisited” at the end of the title, the authors of the present work present a critique of earlier work by Meyer-Rochow & Gal (2003) in which “the projectile trajectory of the faeces is not taken into account”. This previous paper was awarded the Ignobel Prize in 2005.

One should not pooh-pooh research on this topic and now that we have got to Number Two I for one hope for the speedy production of further outputs in this area.

The Open Journal of Astrophysics & INSPIRE

Posted in Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on July 1, 2020 by telescoper

After a busy morning I’ve got time for an update or two about the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

As well as the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) many papers in astrophysics are also indexed by INSPIRE HEP the analogous information management system for high energy physics. Here is the logo for the latter:

Being indexed in INSPIRE  is particularly relevant for authors of papers in astroparticle physics and cosmology, but papers in other areas of astrophysics are also listed on INSPIRE HEP. I am given to understand that, e.g., postdoc selection committees often look at INSPIRE for bibliometric information about applications so this is potentially important for early career researchers.

I am very grateful to staff at Inspire for ensuring that all our papers are now fully indexed in INSPIRE HEP as refereed articles with metadata fully consistent with NASA/ADS. The back catalogue having been dealt with manually we can now set up a feed to ensure that future papers are indexed automatically by NASA/ADS and Inspire HEP.

It is worth noting that because our papers are only published online we do not use the standard referencing style of volumes and pages. We have volumes: Volume 3 is 2020, Volume 2 is 2019, and everything before that is Volume 1. Each paper published in a given year is allocated an numerical id which is just an integer.

For an example of this style, see here.

The main thing for proper cross-referencing and citation is the Digital Object Identifier, which is displayed on the overlay for each paper.

The final thing I wanted to say is that I’m now reliably informed that the correct name to be use for the form of Open Access Publishing offered by the Open Journal of Astrophysics is not Green (which has come to mean author self-archiving of papers) but Diamond Open Access, which means that neither authors nor readers are charged.

Watch “Why the Universe is quite disappointing really – Episode 6” on YouTube

Posted in The Universe and Stuff, YouTube with tags , , on June 30, 2020 by telescoper

I had to suspend the production of these videos for a month or so while I dealt with examination matters, but after that short hiatus, here is Episode 6 during which I explain just how weak and feeble the force of gravity really is. Combined with the fact that the Universe has such a low density (see Episode 5), the weakness of gravity means that the cosmos evolves extremely slowly.

R.I.P. Olivier Le Fèvre (1960-2020)

Posted in The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , on June 29, 2020 by telescoper

Olivier Le Fèvre (1960-2020)

The international cosmological community was deeply saddened last week to hear of the death on 25th June after a long illness of Olivier Le Fèvre. He was 59 years old.

Olivier was a specialist in astronomical spectroscopy and as such he made important contributions to cosmology through galaxy redshift surveys. He was Director of the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille from 2004 to 2011. In latter years he was involved, among many other things, in the Euclid space mission.

You can find a full obituary and appreciation of Olivier’s life and work here. His funeral takes place this morning and there is an online book of condolence here to send messages of condolence and support to his family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.

Rest in peace, Olivier Le Fèvre (1960-2020).