Kissler-Patig on huge optical telescopes of the future: JWST, GMT, TMT, E-ELT

Note to self: I must read Martin Harwit’s work on astronomical discoveries

When you are looking for something you either look elsewhere or you look harder. Extremely large telescopes are of the look harder kind.

Most exciting prospects of the ELTs?
- Study of exoplanets
- Tests of fundamental physics (varying fundamental constants?)

Limitations:
- Price tag (approaching the order of magnitude of space missions)
- Availability (less observing time)
- Versatility (fewer instruments on each instrument)

Open question: should time be given as small chunks of time?

Small projects allow more diversity, risk, opportunity… Big projects needed to address big questions. How to balance the two?

About observing time allocation: there could be annual deadlines for big projects & continuous open observing proposals for small projects? (like HST)

Another tradeoff: multipurpose vs specialised instruments

The price tag is an additional factors in balancing the various tradeoffs. Therefore we need to rethink our operating modes.

Personal comment: It looks like big telescope management needs a Think different approach :)

He had a cool slide putting the E-ELT in front of the great pyramids in Egypt. His comment was to show that we have built bigger things with lower technology before :)

Andrew Hopkins on astronomy after SKA

An entertaining talk pushing the limits of the foreseeable & making conjectures on astronomy in 2035.

With shameless Star Trek references. Who can blame him? :)

Hopkins begins by showing a ship called Entreprise discovering a beautiful star-forming nebula instantly analysed by a computer with a suave voice.

Hopkins takes us to 2035 it’s awesome sci-fi, but all based on proposed scientific experiments.

In 2035 99% of research is based on archived data.

Hopkins quotes xkcd on string theory :)

State of astronomy in 2035:
- facilities have solved today’s fundamental questions
- so much data and archives!
- hard to recruit students to work on instruments because they disappear in consortia of thousands and don’t get science publications out of it
- the community is split into data miners, data takers and theorists
- What are the rewards for the instrumentalists? Beware of breaking the instrument building cycle
- Cross matching between archived data and tools for data access and analysis are needed
- We need to train students to devise clever archival infrastructure (soft- and hardware) & tools (software)(*)

(*) This reminds me of an open question that was brought up at the general discussion on the Astronet plan at JENAM this year: How do you train and reward good software programming skills? Not all astronomers make good programmers and good programmers are increasingly needed.

Markus Poessel comments that emerging astronomy communities (eg in developing countries) often start with being data miners.

Patricia Whitelock comments that a deep understanding of instruments and data will remain crucial to understand data and therefore the science that data contain. We won’t create virtual discoverers

There is another comment on how simulations are also a growing data generation process. No time to expand on that comment but it’s a good point!

Posted in General. 1 Comment »

Ron Ekers in SpS5 ‘Accelerating the rate of astronomical discoveries’

A hugely entertaining talk, well put together, comparing the advantages of big science and small science in terms of discoveries.

The notes below are in telegraphic style (twitter is the new telegram) but there was no wifi in the room so this is the twitter spam you avoided in one big post…

:)

The rate of growth of science is usually exponential (moore’s law is just one example)

There is something underlying these exponentials.

Fields which have not maintained an exponential growth have died out,

To maintain exponential growth technology must change at some point.

How little science becomes big science: individual, laboratory, national facility then international facility

Value of international facilities: global linkages, scientific cross fertilization, networking, wealth creation through industry involvement – often the main motivator for investors

Value of small science: cheaper, more agile, less specialised, educational value, less bureaucracy, tractable team sizes

Compromise between big & small science is desirable eg for choice & versatility of instrument designers.

Ekers on Harwit (1981) discoveries follow soon after technological innovation

New phenomena are more frequently found by researchers outside the field.

Reasonably complete list of Nobel prizes in astronomy (mostly physics prizes)

The Pierre Auger observatory in an observatory but it’s run like a physics lab (smiles)

Penzias’ & Wilson’s antenna is not really small science more like medium science

Ekers on serendipity in science: it’s cyclic and the serendipitous discoverers are all the cleverest

cleverest meaning openminded, open to exception, know their instruments well

Discovery rate as a function of how a facility is run: predicted discoveries dominated by inhouse experts

But serendipitous discoveries are dominted by non experts.

Dilemma on instrument design: specialised with predicted outcomes or more general purpose with fewer predictable discoveries but more open to serendipity?

Ekers has an interesting comparative list of astronomy vs physics cultures. #IAU

Cultures can play a role when looking for jobs

We need big science and it’s advantageous for many reasons

Small science plays a critical role opening new areas and for education

Question: is there an identifiable setting in which discovery gets delayed?

Question: what is of the most value to astronomy? Nobel prizes or the consolidation work?

Ekers: both have their value!

Astronomers Anonymous: not so 21st century.

Astronomers should engage the public more often. It’s tremendous fun, and it’s useful. We sometimes have the illusion that it’s something we do in isolation; a public lecture here, a school visit there; or something better left to those who have an interest in it. Wrong answer. There is much more to it than that.

The first thing to realise is that we are not alone. There are journalists and teachers out there who would love to carry the astronomy message beyond the guest lecture. It’s their profession and they do a great job of it.

So here are some thoughts for the reluctant astronomer-communicator.

Note: In the text below, feel free to swap journalists/teachers and news story/knowledge. Both are the what gets your science to the public of all ages.

Astronomy is a science with pop stars. Famous astronomers and scientists (Einstein, Carl Sagan, Jocelyn Bell, etc.) have a presence to be reckoned with in pop culture(1). New media and social networking brings people closer and the success of astronomers’ blogs(2) or twitter feeds(3) sometimes has nothing to envy some celebrities’ online presence. This does not mean that every astronomer should have a blog or a facebook fan page, but it does demonstrate the interest in astronomy of the general public.

In fact, to young astronomers, I would say: It is not because they are related to you that your family wants to know what you are doing, it is also because it is a fascinating subject for everyone and you have one of the coolest jobs in the world.

The best messenger makes the best news

The science is one thing, but the scientist who communicates it, the face and voice of a discovery is possibly equally important. Be human, be approachable, be relaxed. There is a risk that showing discomfort when talking to journalists/teachers is misread as attitude. Attitude that sends a message saying ‘we are different from ordinary people’ is not what you want. People feel closer to the science when they feel close to the scientist who talks about it. And it goes even deeper than that. In the words of Jameson Wetmore (4)

If scientists are going to be citizens, they need practice in not just communicating their ideas, but having a two-way dialogue with policy-makers and the public.

…and the media is one of the most important gateways to the public.

It’s a dialogue, not a lecture

Take the time to engage journalists and science writers. Try to establish a collaborative relationship with them so that you are working together on getting each science story out to the public in its best form. Volunteer additional explanations when a piece of news is reported from elsewhere. Your openness will be highly appreciated and a huge asset for you.

Approximation is OK. Yes it is.

Remember how sin(x) ~ x when x is small is useful sometimes?…
Sometimes scientists are reluctant to deal with journalists because of the potential inaccuracies in the subsequent coverage. My message to the scientists is “be tolerant“.

Three tricks to remember:
1) The most important is not to be accurate but to transmit the idea.

Incompleteness is not the same as misinformation and sometimes even a little approximation is perfectly tolerable if it does a better job of telling the astronomy news story.

2) Talk about one scientific concept at a time, not one subject at a time!

Your role is to communicate so that people don’t need to know everything on this topic to understand why your piece of astronomical research is newsworthy.

3) Work on metaphors or simplified explanations together with the journalist/media professional.

This will avoid misunderstandings, misconceptions and both will be happier for finding a suitable description of the science. If you need three sentences to clarify something the journalist has misunderstood, they might be able to find the one word that expresses exactly what you mean. That is their area of expertise.

Believe it or not, engaging lay people in communicating science will make you a better communicator and teacher. You will have a better grasp of what people understand and it is sometimes a refreshing reminder that you were also like that before you acquired all that specialist education!

References:
(1) Nice links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking_in_popular_culture
(2) If you haven’t got these in your favourite RSS feeds, you’re missing out!
Quantum Diaries
Cosmic Diary
(3) Twitter hosts a vast number of astro and space tweeps. Follow one and you’ll find many more to follow:
@Astro_Mike
@BadAstronomer
(4)“Scientists: Listen up!”, Jameson M. Wetmore, Letter, Science 17 April 2009. Vol. 324. no. 5925, p. 334

Summer downpour


A Chinese legend says that a very beautiful princess was to be married and had only one requirement: that the one she would marry make and give her a necklace of drops of water.

A million candidates came along, none succeeding to make her give up the requirement.

The eventual winner was an ugly old man who simply asked her to go and pick up the drops herself to make sure she picked the most beautiful ones, his eyes not being what they used to be….

This is a necklace of drops of water, on a national scale! :)