Last week I gave a talk (slides here) about SETI with ZTF and LSST at the "VASCO Workshop".
Here's a video with a short story about how I originally had this idea over 10 years ago, and how it shaped the scientist that I am today.
For those who are interested, here's the April Fools paper I mention, and the writeup I did on THIS blog at the time. Oh, and a little media coverage it received a couple years later!
Showing posts with label speculation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speculation. Show all posts
A new email newsletter for SETI research
No comments:
Topics:
academia,
Astronomy,
space,
speculation
A few months ago I became frustrated with the difficulty in conducting academic research on SETI (that is the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence). Specifically it can be challenging to read the academic literature on SETI because articles are few, and are published in a variety of outlets.
SETI is a controversial topic, both for funding and for "legitimate" research, because it is often associated with conspiracy theories and blatant speculation. There's a lot of this kind of junk on the internet, so I'll let you find it if you're interested... but this material poses an extra layer of obfuscation towards scientists trying to read through the literature. When you search Google for SETI research you have to wade through a lot of junk.
Furthermore, professional astronomers have largely avoided publishing about SETI due to a lack of data. When new technology or new cutting edge datasets become available there's usually a handful of papers written about new imaginative ways we might detect alien life, or conversely that Earth might be detectable using similar techniques on other worlds. These papers get put in to any of a large number of academic journals that, despite heroic efforts by NASA and Harvard/SAO, still take a good deal of effort to read through.
Finally, given the low rate of academic papers on SETI research, it is easy for the occasional bit of brilliant work to slip by unnoticed by scientists. Like many astronomers, I read through the latest daily batches of papers on the "astro-ph" preprint server on arXiv.org every day. This can be dozens of new research articles to scan over each day. Typically I only read the titles for every paper, and the abstracts for only those that stand out. Sometimes I don't even see papers that I'm a co-author on appearing due to the volume of papers to look over!
For all these reasons, SETI is a difficult topic to learn about and stay abreast of!
After chatting with some folks who shared this concern, I decided one way to help was to start an email newsletter each month that highlights new research articles about SETI (and related topics). It's called SETI.news, it's free, and if you're interested in keep up to date on SETI research you should subscribe!
Each month, SETI.news simply sends a brief email listing articles I find on the arXiv that mention SETI. If there are other sources of research results (say, a GitHub project, a Zenodo group, or just a paper not on the arXiv) then I would also list those if people send them to me! SETI.news is not an academic journal or publisher, though I think an open journal of SETI research (run by academics, with editors, referees, etc) would be a great idea for collecting this material.
Check out the March edition of SETI.news here, and be sure to subscribe!
iPhone thickness over time
2 comments:
Topics:
Apple,
design,
humor,
speculation,
technology
For me, a thin phone makes carrying the device constantly much more comfortable. (Massive screen size is not a big selling point for me) So I was curious, how has the iPhone shrunk since it's conception in 2007?
The figure above shows a nice steady trend towards thin... Using a linear extrapolation to this data, we can expect that sometime in 2023 Apple will announce an iPhone with a thickness of 0mm. That will be 16 years after the introduction of the device, so I project the product name will be approximately iPhone 17.
You heard it here first, folks!
The Dream of Spaceflight
No comments:
Topics:
NASA,
space,
speculation
 |
| Me and fellow member of team "Gagarin", at Space Camp (Huntsville, AL) circa 2001 |
This past Friday during a test flight over the Mojave desert the privately funded SpaceShipTwo crashed, killing one test pilot and severely injuring another. Combined with the destruction of a privately built Antares rocket during launch (thankfully nobody injured), it's been a hard week for the business of space.
Some worry these two accidents have been a damning setback to the dream. Here the dream I'm referring to is making space travel common, available to everyone. And to be clear, it's a LONG ways off... Currently it costs between $1 and $10 per lb to fly on commercial airlines (of course, we don't buy tickets by the lb, but its a round number). By comparison, launching something in to space is over 1000X more expensive, around $10,000 per lb. When private companies are able to make spaceflight an everyday reality, we'll be a lot closer to this dream.
Around 540 people have flown in space (and perhaps a few more if you believe militaries have flown secret missions). That's it! Fewer than 600 humans have ever left our world. Given that the World population is still increasing, I wondered: Has the number of people who have flown in to space actually kept up with population growth?
In other words, even though it's insanely expensive to launch people, and very few have been fortunate enough to go, are we making any progress on the dream?
Lunar Coincidence
1 comment:
Topics:
Astronomy,
speculation
Something fundamental has been on my mind (again) recently:
Why is the Moon almost exactly the same angular size as the Sun?????
To be clear: what I mean is the Moon and Sun appear to be the same size in the sky, which has the thrilling consequence of generating the occasional total solar eclipse, like this:
This is one of those big "whoa dude" factoids to me. How can the apparent size of the sun and moon be so close?! Why should it be so?! Most people would say it's a coincidence. This is something I've wondered about for a long time.
Recently a very interesting paper by Steven Balbus discussed this phenomena, and the possible consequence it has on life. Consider: if the Moon was more dense but the same mass and distance, it would have nearly the same tidal effect on the Earth, yet wouldn't cause total eclipses. If the Moon was a bit further away it wouldn't raise the same tides (and possibly do a host of other interesting things), which might be fundamental for life as we know it...
So it's a handy fact that the Moon is the right mass and distance that helps create life, and a damned coincidence that it also happens to be the same angular size as the Sun in our sky! Consider the cultural implications our Sun/Moon being equal in size. The result is frequent appearance in myth and legend as opposing gods.
If we assume all moons are spheres, this is an easy enough calculation to do. You just need to gather the separations and sizes (radii) of the Sun, the planets, and all their moons throughout the solar system! A little geometry (see kids, not just useful for mini-golf) and you can figure out how large the Sun and each moon appears in the sky as seen from the "surface" of each planet...
Here's a graph to that effect:
To get total solar eclipses you need moons that land on the line of equality in this graph (dotted line). Indeed, 3 other satellites (besides our bff, Luna) exhibit this coincidence! Of course, you can't stand on the "surface" of Saturn or Uranus, so this is all kind of silly... Let's take a look at the "winners":
The first two are potato shaped rocks (each about 40miles across), not the grand sphere we're used to seeing in our night sky. Pandora isn't quite like James Cameron's imagined moon. The third may not even be a "moon"... It's the little fleck the yellow arrow points at. The discovery of Perdita was disputed for a while, and only recently been reconfirmed using HST.
That these moons (which could exactly cause total solar eclipses) are so small is really a statement about how far the giant planets truly are from the Sun. Out there the Sun is just a bright star in the sky!
There are lots of other moons that would appear very large in the sky as well. The famous Jovian moons are huge and close. Note how crazy big Charon appears compared to Pluto - this is really a "binary planet" configuration (yeah yeah yeah, I know Pluto's not a planet).
Aside: binary planets are something I've been muttering about for a couple years now... I've got $10 that says we find one in the next 5-10 years.
I'm tickled to imagine: what if beings lived in the clouds of Saturn, floating in the thin cold air, soaking up the faint sunlight. Very occasionally that somewhat brighter star would wink out completely, only to be re-lit by Prometheus, bringer of fire...
Why is the Moon almost exactly the same angular size as the Sun?????
To be clear: what I mean is the Moon and Sun appear to be the same size in the sky, which has the thrilling consequence of generating the occasional total solar eclipse, like this:
This is one of those big "whoa dude" factoids to me. How can the apparent size of the sun and moon be so close?! Why should it be so?! Most people would say it's a coincidence. This is something I've wondered about for a long time.
Recently a very interesting paper by Steven Balbus discussed this phenomena, and the possible consequence it has on life. Consider: if the Moon was more dense but the same mass and distance, it would have nearly the same tidal effect on the Earth, yet wouldn't cause total eclipses. If the Moon was a bit further away it wouldn't raise the same tides (and possibly do a host of other interesting things), which might be fundamental for life as we know it...
So it's a handy fact that the Moon is the right mass and distance that helps create life, and a damned coincidence that it also happens to be the same angular size as the Sun in our sky! Consider the cultural implications our Sun/Moon being equal in size. The result is frequent appearance in myth and legend as opposing gods.
- - -So I started wondering... there are lots of moons in our solar system (we don't know of any moons in other planetary systems yet). Do any other moons exhibit this kind of coincidence, where the apparent diameter of the moon is the same as the Sun, as seen from the surface of the planet?
If we assume all moons are spheres, this is an easy enough calculation to do. You just need to gather the separations and sizes (radii) of the Sun, the planets, and all their moons throughout the solar system! A little geometry (see kids, not just useful for mini-golf) and you can figure out how large the Sun and each moon appears in the sky as seen from the "surface" of each planet...
Here's a graph to that effect:
To get total solar eclipses you need moons that land on the line of equality in this graph (dotted line). Indeed, 3 other satellites (besides our bff, Luna) exhibit this coincidence! Of course, you can't stand on the "surface" of Saturn or Uranus, so this is all kind of silly... Let's take a look at the "winners":
Prometheus (orbiting Saturn)
Pandora (orbiting Saturn)
_PIA_12690.png)
Perdita (orbiting Uranus... maybe)
The first two are potato shaped rocks (each about 40miles across), not the grand sphere we're used to seeing in our night sky. Pandora isn't quite like James Cameron's imagined moon. The third may not even be a "moon"... It's the little fleck the yellow arrow points at. The discovery of Perdita was disputed for a while, and only recently been reconfirmed using HST.
That these moons (which could exactly cause total solar eclipses) are so small is really a statement about how far the giant planets truly are from the Sun. Out there the Sun is just a bright star in the sky!
There are lots of other moons that would appear very large in the sky as well. The famous Jovian moons are huge and close. Note how crazy big Charon appears compared to Pluto - this is really a "binary planet" configuration (yeah yeah yeah, I know Pluto's not a planet).
Aside: binary planets are something I've been muttering about for a couple years now... I've got $10 that says we find one in the next 5-10 years.
I'm tickled to imagine: what if beings lived in the clouds of Saturn, floating in the thin cold air, soaking up the faint sunlight. Very occasionally that somewhat brighter star would wink out completely, only to be re-lit by Prometheus, bringer of fire...
The Speculative Contributions of A. Loeb
No comments:
Topics:
Astronomy,
speculation
In yesterday's arXiv email there was a short essay that may have escaped some people's notice. Professor Avi Loeb, chair of Harvard's astronomy department, published "On the Benefits of Promoting Diversity of Ideas", which shares 10 examples of persistent/creative astronomers who ignored nay sayers and push forward to important discoveries. The article is one sentence too long.
I personally enjoy when senior members of the astronomy community take the time to analyze the state and future of our field, and their comments on what makes a "good" scientist. I don't agree with all of them, but there is potentially great wisdom to be had. Take for example the penultimate sentence in Avi's recent essay:
For the past 5 years, Avi has published on the arXiv at least 1 article per year on the subject of speculation and the state/future of astronomy. There is usually a focus on encouraging breadth and boldness in graduate students. Here are the submissions that stood out to me:
Together these make a great series of short papers, and should be required reading for graduate students. The takeaways for budding scientists echo comments I've heard from people like Prof. Julianne Dalcanton: don't be afraid to fail. Be curious, be creative, be bold.
Be curious, be creative, be bold.
This is a process we don't really teach in graduate school. There's a focus on independence and productivity, as those are what "gets work done" and lead to grant funding. It seems rare that we incentivize truly speculative and creative ideas from students.
What a shame! If ever there was a time in your career you should be encouraged to play, grad school is it! Sort of like recess for 25 year olds, we need to teach people to play with science. Also this is the cheapest time in your career, and the academe can let a grad student's mind wander for pennies on the faculty dollar.
To be fair, I think many faculty do encourage creativity from their students, and that many students don't seek it out. Maybe we need to find ways of actively teaching creativity. I like "Hack Day" events that have been popping up at conferences/workshops lately, and the growth of the "unconference" (though both of these have silly names for what they really are).
I suggest we organize an astronomy unconference focused on creativity itself. The first meeting of the Society of Speculative Astronomy. Instead of an afternoon "Hack Day" where people do projects, we could have a "Hat Day" where people just foster new ideas. Invited speakers to discuss the history of crazy ideas and the future of the absurd. Lightning talks on specific mysteries or opportunities. Known unknowns. Unknown unknowns. Unknown knowns? Not dreaming up fantasy, just considering possibility. It would be a celebration of creativity!
I personally enjoy when senior members of the astronomy community take the time to analyze the state and future of our field, and their comments on what makes a "good" scientist. I don't agree with all of them, but there is potentially great wisdom to be had. Take for example the penultimate sentence in Avi's recent essay:
"...telescope-time allocation committees and funding agencies should dedicate a fixed fraction of their resources (say 10-20%) to risky explorations."That's a great idea... one whose time may never come, alas.
For the past 5 years, Avi has published on the arXiv at least 1 article per year on the subject of speculation and the state/future of astronomy. There is usually a focus on encouraging breadth and boldness in graduate students. Here are the submissions that stood out to me:
Taking "The Road Not Taken'': On the Benefits of Diversifying Your Academic Portfolio (2010)
Together these make a great series of short papers, and should be required reading for graduate students. The takeaways for budding scientists echo comments I've heard from people like Prof. Julianne Dalcanton: don't be afraid to fail. Be curious, be creative, be bold.
Be curious, be creative, be bold.
This is a process we don't really teach in graduate school. There's a focus on independence and productivity, as those are what "gets work done" and lead to grant funding. It seems rare that we incentivize truly speculative and creative ideas from students.
What a shame! If ever there was a time in your career you should be encouraged to play, grad school is it! Sort of like recess for 25 year olds, we need to teach people to play with science. Also this is the cheapest time in your career, and the academe can let a grad student's mind wander for pennies on the faculty dollar.
To be fair, I think many faculty do encourage creativity from their students, and that many students don't seek it out. Maybe we need to find ways of actively teaching creativity. I like "Hack Day" events that have been popping up at conferences/workshops lately, and the growth of the "unconference" (though both of these have silly names for what they really are).
I suggest we organize an astronomy unconference focused on creativity itself. The first meeting of the Society of Speculative Astronomy. Instead of an afternoon "Hack Day" where people do projects, we could have a "Hat Day" where people just foster new ideas. Invited speakers to discuss the history of crazy ideas and the future of the absurd. Lightning talks on specific mysteries or opportunities. Known unknowns. Unknown unknowns. Unknown knowns? Not dreaming up fantasy, just considering possibility. It would be a celebration of creativity!
April Fools - UFOs and the Humorous New Frontiers of Science
No comments:
Topics:
Astronomy,
humor,
speculation
"And now for something completely different..."
Like many astronomers, I read the astronomy section of the arXiv (astro-ph) daily over coffee. It is a repository where researchers post manuscripts for rapid (and free) dissemination and archival.
Link of interest: When to post to arXiv? (via AstroBetter)
I became aware of April Fools paper on the arXiv a few years ago, which range from silly inside-jokes between friends to the more subtle. My favorite is when you only realize the paper is a joke after you've started reading it! These are in short supply, but every year one or two come along.
More seriously, I love that the arXiv provides a reasonably legitimate forum to publish things that are more complex than a blog post, but perhaps less rigorous than a paper. Especially given how expensive it is to publish (page charges are routinely more than $125/page for authors), the arXiv gives scientists a valuable alternative.
There is value in the absurd.Especially in astronomy, we must entertain the totally bizarre and fringe (at least to a point). In this age where astrophysics is becoming truly hard, less funded, and driven by massive collaborations, I have heard it said that astronomers risk becoming less creative. If you only do science that's a "sure thing", if you're not willing to speculate a little, if you haven't the guts to try something new or engage in a bit of academic creativity, then our majestic enterprise will surely fail.
So perhaps April Fools can also be a day where we shamelessly trot out some fun ideas, some semi serious or even speculative notions. We could create a Journal of Speculative Astrophysics specifically for ideas whose time may not have come just yet, one edition per annum (Fritz Zwicky could be the editor in perpetuity).
Or maybe I'll be unemployed on Tuesday! Either way, I want to believe...
A short list of other past April Fools papers...
- Pareidolic Dark Matter (2013)
- Conspiratorial cosmology - the case against the Universe
- Galaxy Zoo: an unusual new class of galaxy cluster (2009)
- Schroedinger's Cat is not Alone (2010)
- On the influence of the Illuminati in astronomical adaptive optics (2012)
- The Proof of Innocence (2012)
- On the Ratio of Circumference to Diameter for the Largest Observable Circles: An Empirical Approach (2012)
- Non-detection of the Tooth Fairy at Optical Wavelengths (2012)
- Superiority of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (LPL) over Steward Observatory (SO) at the University of Arizona (April 1, 2002)
- On the Utter Irrelevance of LPL Graduate Students: An Unbiased Survey by Steward Observatory Graduate Students (April 2, 2002)
If you know of any other real gems, drop them in the comments below or shoot me a line!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)