In 1962 John F Kennedy made what is probably the iconic speech on space travel,
One of the key points in the speech was answering “why go to the Moon?”,
“But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too”
Today I was thinking about this speech and I thought, how many times have these hard things been done since then. Well here’s the answer,
Sources, flights (I couldn’t find long-term historical traffic data), Everest (-9 ascents pre1962), Rice vs Texas. For the non-Americans the last example was because the speech was made at Rice University and every few years Rice plays the University of Texas, a school 16 times its size, at American football.
And if you think it’s bad for Rice try being a Hawaii Rainbow Warriors (7-28 last 3 seasons) fan like me.
One hundred and seventy five years ago a Scottish astronomer published the result that he would become famous for. Unfortunately it was the timing of the result that was the most note-worthy thing.
Thomas Henderson didn’t follow what we would now consider a typical astronomical career. He started out in Dundee as an apprentice to a lawyer. Six years later he moved to Edinburgh to further his law studies eventually becoming secretary to the Lord Advocate (similar to the Attorney General in other countries). All the while Henderson had been developing his astronomical hobby, focussing on computational methods. It was his brilliance in this that resulted in him determining more accurate methods to work out the timing of the Moon’s passage infront of stars. This calcualtion brought him to the attention of Thomas Young who at the time was running the Naval Almanac Office, in-charge of accurately calculating the timing of astronomical events. He applied for a job at the Almanac Office after a posthumous reccomendation by Young but was turned down. He was also turned down for a job at Edinburgh University around this time. Henderson then took a job working at the Cape Observatory (yes, he had to move halfway round the world to stay in astronomy, how modern). He spent a year there, working ridiculous hours making a massive number of astronomical observations. This appears to have burnt him out and he moved back to Edinburgh to become the first Astronomer Royal for Scotland. But he brought back with him the dataset that would see his name go down in history.
The distance to stars can be pretty hard to measure. While the noted astronomers of antiquity had noted “the fixed stars” as opposed to the wandering planets, by Henderson’s time it was understood that stars moved slowly across the sky. This indicated that the stars weren’t infinitely far away and (due to its high motion) that Alpha Centauri was probably quite close. The best way to estimate the distance to a star is using trigonometric parallax, taking advantage of the subtle changes in the point of view a star is observed from at different stages in the Earth’s orbit.
This first step on the stellar distance ladder became one of the big science goals of the mid-19th century. Henderson was one of the best in the world in astronomical calculations and soon after returning from the Cape, he had noticed an oscillation in the position of Alpha Centauri. This was about an arcsecond, roughly the size of a Coke can viewed 440km away. This made Alpha Centauri about 3.25 light years away (compared to the true distance of 4.4 light years). However Henderson wasn’t sure, he thought his instrument may be suspect so he waited for more observations from the Cape to confirm his results. Unfortunately his lack of confidence bit him, he was beaten to the first parallax measurement by the Prussian astronomer Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel nipped in and measured the parallax of another fast-moving star 61 Cygni in 1838, two months before Henderson’s publication.
Henderson’s lack of confidence may have stemmed from previous parallax measurements which were later shown to be nonsense. However it may have stemmed from the inherent lack of confidence Scots have. Scottish people are among the least confident in the developed world, Scottish satire writers pick “Lloyd, I’m ready to be heartbroken” to sum up the Scottish national football team. Perhaps the best summation of this is Gordon McIntyre’s, “I hate the way we expect to fail, and then we fail, and then we get bitter because we fail.” A nation defined by glorious failure, shy about its history of discovery, doesn’t produce risk takers.All that said, if I’d have been in Henderson’s position, I would have done the same. We’ve all seen massive “discioveries” knocked down by data released soon after and in science it should be more important to be right than to be first at all costs.
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.