So far in this World Cup we’ve been hearing that the heat in Brazil is responsible for a series of massive upsets and for the generally high number of goals scored in the tournament so far. In addition the old mantra of “European teams can’t play in the heat” has been trotted out. I decided to do a very rough analysis on the group games in the tournament to see if I could find any statistical evidence that any of this was true. Firstly I tabulated all the results from the group games and added the relative humidity and temperature from FIFA’s own match reports. For one match (England vs Italy) I couldn’t find a FIFA number for the humidity so I took it from a number of match reports in the press. As well as who won each game and how many goals were scored I also added a column for the number of goals scored after the 70th minute of the game.
To try to quantify the conditions in a single number I used the NOAA Heat Index* calculation to estimate how hot it felt to the players. This is a relatively crude instrument and doesn’t include direct solar irradiation but, meh, I don’t have time to do more. I also didn’t attempt to factor in the relative strengths of each side (Mexico beating Croatia was not as big a shock as Costa Rica beating Italy), that is probably worth doing so if you want to do that yourself, go ahead.
1. There seems to be no correlation between goals scored and conditions. This also extends to goals scored in the last 20mins of games. I estimated the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to identify a correlation between goals scored and Heat Index. For the full match this came out at -0.051 and for the last twenty minutes -0.052. Hence there’s pretty well no correlation between high scoring games and conditions. See plot below,
2. The matches which were won by European teams were not that much warmer than the ones they lost or drew. Below are the histograms for the games won, lost and drawn by European teams when they face opposition from other continents.
So on first inspection it appears that the European teams did better in cooler games. I did a KS test to see if the games European teams won were drawn from the same distribution of conditions as the games they lost. This resulted in a 43% chance that they are drawn from the same distribution, i.e. it’s a 43% probability that the heat had no effect. This is a fairly ambiguous region of probability space so I wouldn’t shout from the rooftops that European teams are more affected by the heat than those from other continents. There of course a flaw here, France would probably beaten Honduras if all the players had been forced to wear parkas and the game had been played in an enormous sauna run by a particularly psychotic Finn. Hence there are datapoints in this calculation which would have likely turned out as win for the European team no matter what and there are much closer games which one might expect could be effected by the heat. Hence this rather simple analysis could be affected by small number stats (it would be a truly momentous upset if European teams were to lose all games in hot conditions and win all the colder games no matter what the opposition) so it probably isn’t worth drawing too many conclusions from it. Perhaps a more in-depth analysis involving pre-match betting odds/spreads would help to get rid of that effect.
In summary I’d say
It’s often stated that hot, humid conditions lead to high-scoring matches with European teams underperforming. The results from the group stages do not significantly support these hypotheses.
One final note to give this a vague link to astronomy. Astronomical telescopes close in conditions of high humidity to stop condensation forming on the mirrors and electronics. The specific level at which telescopes close varies between observatories. 30 out of the 48 group matches were at a sufficiently high humidity (>60%) that the ESO Very Large Telescopes would not have been able to conduct observations. 25% of games failed the 75% humidity test used by some observatories on Mauna Kea. This is one of the reasons large astronomical telescopes are not situated next to football stadia in Brazil.
*Yes, I know, it’s in Fahrenheit, I don’t like it either.
About a year ago I wrote about how Kevin Luhman at Penn State had discovered a pair of brown dwarfs that were the just 2 parsecs (about 6 lightyears) from the Sun. Well he’s gone and done it again, discovering another brown dwarf at about 2pc, only this time it’s colder, much, much colder.
A decade and half ago, we astronomers (being rather odd) were getting very excited about some new odd objects we were finding by looking at the sky in infrared light. These brown dwarfs bridged the gap between very low mass stars (which can go down to about 8% of the mass of the Sun) and giant planets like Jupiter (with a mass of about 0.1% of the mass of the Sun). Brown dwarfs can’t fuse hydrogen in their cores so they don’t have a stable brightness like stars do and hence cool with time. This means that a very cold brown dwarf could be very low mass or just very old. Anyway, the things we were getting excited about 15 years ago had temperatures of about 1100C. At this point the cloud physics of these objects change dramatically, their upper atmospheres clear and their colours in near-infrared light changes significantly.
A decade or so went along and we started to get more excited as we crept to lower and lower temperatures, getting down to about 400-500C. Then we got a stroke of luck, Kevin Luhman (yup, same bloke) published the discovery of a really cold brown dwarf around a dead star called a white dwarf. This has a temperature of 25-80C, so between a pleasant summers day and a hot cup of tea. This object was joined by a few other slightly hotter objects which formed a newly defined class of cold brown dwarfs, the Y dwarfs. These big balls of gas about the size of Jupiter could have water clouds in their atmospheres.
So now we have a new coldest brown dwarf. It was found by looking at images from the WISE satellite which studies the universe in mid-infrared radiation. Nearby stars and brown dwarfs move slowly across the sky compared to background stars due to proper motion. This can be pretty slow, a very nearby star might move at one arcsecond per year, about the apparent angular speed of a tortoise walking at the distance of the Sun. So Luhman looked for objects that had moved a lot between different WISE images and found one which he published last year. This was a pair of cool brown dwarfs with temperatures of about 1100C. Now he’s published another that is moving even faster, about 8 arcseconds per year. Despite this, it is about the same distance as the previously published one, 2.2pc (a bit more than 6 lightyears). This distance was determined by follow-up Spitzer Space Telescope observations using a trick called trigonometric parallax.
So what is this thing? Well, we know it is bright in the mid-infrared, light which it is difficult to observe from Earth and which is way beyond what the human eye can see. And that’s where the observations of it stop, well not really, we can tell a bit about this object from what we don’t see, near-infrared light. Luhman’s new object was observed by the VISTA telescope in Chile a few years back. Well I say observed, it didn’t see it, neither did Luhman’s follow-up observations with Gemini. But from those observations one can set a limit of how bright this object is in the near-infrared and hence constrain its properties. Luhman used these along with his measurement of how bright the object was in the mid-infrared to find that the temperature was -48 to -13C, colder than ice on Earth, you’d even struggle to play at Lambeau Field in those temperatures. Not that this is a solid, icy planet, it’s about 3 to 10 times the mass of Jupiter and about the same size. It’s also a bit warmer than Jupiter which has an effective temperature at the top of its clouds of about -160C.
What more will we find out about it? Who knows. Last year’s spectacular Luhman discovery sent astronomers into a frenzy, studying the weather on the objects, even mapping its clouds. This one will be harder as the object is so cold and faint, but I’m sure observers will be furiously writing proposals to observe this immediately. Wait, why am I blogging? I should be proposal writing. And I’m sure this object will be one of the first things the mid-infrared JWST will look at when it launches.
A political manoeuvre by the government of Monaco could lead to disaster for large scientific facilities, but would be a boon for the economy of the small principality. The European Union has protected products from specific geographic regions for over 20 years. As a result, anything designated as a “Protected Designation of Origin” (PDO) can only be produced in a defined geographic region. This has resulted in champagne only being produced in the appropriate region of France, protection for the economically important Cornish pasty industry and has been a lifeline to traditional Arbroath Smokie factories which make up 40% of the economy of the Angus region of Scotland. The Monégasque government has applied (as an EU associated country) to allow its distinctive “Monte Carlo” name for casinos to be afforded the same status. The principality believes this will protect its exclusive brand from competition from down-market amusement arcades.
This application could have wide-reaching implications in the scientific community. Traditionally, large-scale simulations which rely on random number generation have been termed “Monte Carlo” a brand which would fall foul of the PDO designation. Large EU-based scientific institutions could now be faced with a choice, close down their computer simulation departments, or move them to the tiny city-state on the Mediterranean coast. Mark Ofchane, professor of computational astrophysics at the Irish National Space Agency says this could lead to funding problems for many departments. “Governments fund Big Science based on our ability to train the next generation of young minds for the modern workforce,” he said, “Now we have to tell the politicians that our students will be sunning themselves in glamorous Monaco rather than slaving away in subterranean labs across Northern Europe”.
The move has resulted in big plans to expand the currently tiny science research-base in Monaco. Count Simeon Poisson-d’Avril, the Monégasque science minister, has announced plans to build a new “Science City” on the outskirts of the capital. Named after a wealthy benefactor, the Hastings Metropolis will allow Monaco to fully explore the probability space offered by the influx of scientists. “We see this as a massive step up,” the Count said, “Maybe there will be some steps down in future, but we are confident these will be only part of determining the probability of us gaining the maximum economic benefit from this move.”
Recently the International Astronomical Union decided that planets might start getting named after things. Previously they’d been given a lower-case letter after the name of their host star. Now they could get other names, something that inspired this memorable XKCD cartoon.
Well it turns out some of the planets aren’t terribly happy about the prospect too. In-fact Gliese 581d is pretty miserable about the idea of getting a dull or bizarre name, especially if you decide to name it after your cat, Colin. Gl 581d is a planet that’s a bit more massive than the Earth orbiting a faint, red star in the constellation of Libra. It might have a temperature that means it isn’t too hot or too cold to have liquid water (the so-called “Goldilocks zone“). This means it might have life. All it wants is to get a nice mythical name like the planets in the Solar System, preferably Norse but any pantheon would do. It really doesn’t want to be called after a celebrity or your mum or Permadeath, just a nice normal, mythical name. It’s been bombarded by comets for a billion years so don’t you think it deserves a break?
Be careful however, there are some mythical names are a bad choice, particularly Vulcan. This was a planet proposed around the Sun to explain the unusual orbit of Mercury. However it wasn’t there, the change in Mercury’s orbit was due to a subtle gravitation effect that wasn’t properly understood until Einstein came along with his theory of General Relativity.
Sometimes people have named stars for monetary or patriotic reasons like Herschel originally naming Uranus “George’s Star” after the British king at the time, so steer clear of that. Also a lot of asteroids have unusual names like Moomintroll, and it isn’t keen on that either. So please give a planet a break and name it something sensible.
Thanks to @ruthangus for doing the drawing, @emilulu and Russ for helping record this at AMNH, @astrodrian for lending me his guitar, @noisyastronomer for her camera and to .astronomy and the NERD Centre. The video was partly inspired by “Hey There Andy Murray” by Far-In Jim.
The audio file is also on Soundcloud.
OK I’m going to break my blogging silence and my aversion to blogging in my subject area to post about a really cool result that came out earlier this week.
Looking up at the night sky you see a hodge-podge collection of stars, perhaps a few thousand of the hundreds of billions of stars in the Galaxy. Some are extremely bright types of star that are really far away. Others like the Sun’s nearest neighbouring system Alpha Centauri are fairly run of the mill but appear bright because they are so close. But not all stars close to the Sun can be seen with the naked eye. Take Barnard’s Star, the second closest system to the Sun, it’s situated roughly twice as far away from us as Alpha Centauri but because it’s a red, faint type of star, it’s over 6,000 times fainter and 25 times too faint to see with the naked eye. This means that even though some stars are very close to us, they are so faint that we need to use a few tricks to pick them out from bright background stars.
One of the best tricks to use is to take a picture of the sky and look back a few years later and compare the positions of stars. Stars move around the Galaxy with different orbits and hence every star has a velocity with respect to the Sun. Due to their closeness, nearby stars appear to move more compared to background stars (their proper motion). This is simply a perspective effect, they aren’t actually moving through space faster. Hence if you look for stars moving quickly across the sky, chances are a lot of them will be near the Solar System. This isn’t simply a matter of cartography, if you want to pick out a population of faint objects, your best bet is to look close-by.
And that’s exactly what Kevin Luhman did. By taking the positions of objects observed by the WISE satellite, he found one which stuck out. It moved across the sky pretty fast and was very bright in infrared light. Looking back at images taken by other surveys he also found it detected there. This often happens in astronomy, sometimes you find an object nobody had noticed was interesting before but which may have been first detected 50 or even 100 years ago. Anyway, the object Luhman found was moving across the sky pretty fast. Well actually it wasn’t, nearby stars tend to have their motions measured in arcseconds per year. One arcsecond per year is the same angular speed as seeing the average tortoise walking at the distance of the Sun from Earth. The newly discovered high proper motion object was moving at about 2.8 Solar Tortoises, which is pretty big for stars. Well I say star, but it isn’t, it’s a brown dwarf, well actually not “a” brown dwarf.
Stars are fuelled by nuclear reactions in their core. These work because of the huge temperatures in their cores caused by all the mass above pushing down. It’s like the atomic nuclei in the core are caught at the bottom of a really big rugby ruck*. Anyway, they get so hot that they can sometimes overcome their mutual repulsion and fuse together. However some objects, with masses below about 8% of the Sun can’t reach the appropriate minimum temperature to begin stable fusion and hence are “failed” stars or brown dwarfs. When Luhman took a spectrum of his object, he found it was a brown dwarf, well actually while taking the observation he found that it was actually two brown dwarfs in orbit around one and other. Finally, using the data from the WISE satellite and other surveys he was able to work out its distance from an effect known as trigonometric parallax. This showed the two brown dwarfs are about 6.5 lightyears away, slightly more distant than Barnard’s Star.
My reaction to this was probably like others in my field, “how did we miss this?” Well the answer is simple, the system lies close to the Milky Way. The density of stars on the sky increases sharply as you go close to the plane of the Milky Way, meaning searches of nearby stars are often flooded with spurious candidates. Additionally the gas and dust in the plane make background stars appear redder and faint in the optical but still bright in the infrared. This can mimic the colour of brown dwarfs, again contaminating searches. Brown dwarf searches therefor often avoid the region around the Milky Way to make sure they can have clean samples without wading through a load of junk. Hence the extremely nearby, bright brown dwarf lay undiscovered for decades after it had first been detected.
And that brings me to my last point, this is a really cool discovery yet it hasn’t got the attention it deserves. The third closest system to the Sun was just found, that should at least be on the BBC News front page.
*There are no known instances of a rugby ruck leading to nuclear fusion
When I was younger one of my favourite game franchises was the Command & Conquer series, in particular Red Alert (1 and 2). They were real-time strategy, or RTS, games, where you built your base, harvested resources, trained your soldiers, and invested in high-tech weaponry all whilst being attacked by your opponents (either other players, or the computer AI). If I’m honest, my game tactics were always a little shaky. I was more likely to throw everything I had on mad, suicidal, missions against the other team, rather than spending the time to properly invest in the infrastructure of my base. In extreme cases I would even sell all my buildings, spend all the money on infantry and send everyone in. Surprisingly this actually worked. Sometimes.
My friend Tom however, he was good at these games. He always had a strategy. A proper one, not the crazy, oh-my-there’s-a-tesla-coil-right-there-RUN-AWAY!, one that I’d be using. He’s been spending time recently on StarCraft 2, another RTS game where you try to become master of a region of space by colonising planets, displacing the territory of the two other rival civilisations as you go.
Tom’s not just a game player though – he’s also an astronomer. Turns out when you combine gaming astronomers (Tom & his colleague Duncan) with real StarCraft gameplay data and realistic simulations of colonisation, based on our own Milky Way, what you end up with is a model of interstellar species expansion. Unsurprisingly the game is pretty evenly balanced (to prevent any one species or strategy from dominating), but the simulations do suggest that one of the races, the Terrans, tend to win out if they put pressure on their opponents early.
Using game data to investigate real-world problems has been around for a few years now. It began when researchers realised that the spread of a virtual plague in World of Warcraft shared many similarities with the spread of real viruses.
Tom and Duncan’s results aren’t meant to directly relate to how real aliens could be spreading through the Galaxy right now (and they definitely don’t want to give the impression that “…intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us”). However, they do demonstrate the potential power in-game data has for future work in this area.