Chris Lintott's Universe

New website

2006-10-01T09:52:00.000+01:00

This site has been (is being) relaunched at www.chrislintott.net, and will be updated at least three times a week from now on. Please update your bookmarks and rss feeds, and have a look at www.banguniverse.com while you're at it.

Better than I could say

2006-03-15T18:15:00.000Z

No time to write today - although there's so much to say about Saturn, comets and cosmology - but in the meantime this combines the last two rants nicely.

New WMAP results due on Thursday

2006-03-14T07:33:00.000Z

In 2001, WMAP was launched to study the cosmic microwave background. This radiation has traveled across space since 300,000 years after the Big Bang, and provides a snapshot of this distant epoch. By studying the fluctuations in this radiation, WMAP was able (among other things, and in combination with other ways of gathering data) to confirm the Universe was flat, tie down the time since the Big Bang and date the first stars to a surprisingly early epoch.

That analysis, released in 2003, was based on the first year's worth of data. Since then there has been a complete silence from the mission team, with the second year's worth of data continually a few months from release. However, I've just heard that the next tranch of data - together with the team's analysis - will be released on Thursday at 12pm EST (5pm UK time), settling several years worth of speculation and gossip.

Watch this space!

All things Martian

2006-03-13T10:54:00.000Z

It's been a busy solar system week. Thoughts from Saturn coming tomorrow, but we've also had the arrival of Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter at the red planet, which means that six spacecraft are now active. MRO will take six months or so to drop down into its science orbit (dipping through the Martian atmosphere on each orbit to gradually change the orbit's shape).

The other spacecraft are :

Mars Global Surveyor, in orbit since 1999, currently looking for changes in the surface and atmosphere and also providing details on potential landing sites for future missions.

Mars Odyssey, which arrived in 2001 and has provided detailed maps of the mineralogy of the Martian surface for the first time.

Mars Express, ESA's first solo interplanetary spacecraft. Although the release of the images has been slow, the trickle of high-resolution views of the Martian surface is slowly growing. Where else can you watch dust flow over the edge of a crater on another planet?

Last but certainly not least, Spirit and Opportunity still roving on the surface after two Earth years. For an excellent overview of their first nine months or so, Steve Sqyre's book is excellent, and you can read sporadic updates at his website.

As you might imagine, these six spacecraft are going to have sent back enough data to keep their scientists busy for many, many years even after their missions end. For the rest of us, today sees the launch of Google Mars which has already consumed large chunks of my day!

Creationism on the quiet?

2006-03-10T12:34:00.000Z

This article from the Guardian has me a little worried. They quote schools standards minister Jacqui Smith as saying

Creationism is one of many differing beliefs which pupils might discuss and consider, perhaps when they learn about another aspect of science: 'ways in which scientific work may be affected by the contexts in which it takes place... and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted

The only source for this is 'a parliamentary answer', but the only relevant discussion I can find in the record is (Hansard, 27 Feb. 06)

Neither creationism nor intelligent design is taught as a subject in schools. The national curriculum programme of study for science at key stage 4 covers evolution. It sets out that pupils should be taught "that the fossil record is evidence for evolution" and also "how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction". Pupils should however be taught about "how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence". Also, the biblical view of creation can be taught in RE lessons, where pupils are taught to consider opposing theories and come to their own, reasoned conclusions. Therefore, although creationism and intelligent design are not part of the national curriculum, they could be covered in these contexts.

That latter statement is, frankly, a lot more reassuring. So until we can unearth the statement for the Guardian's report, it seems that at least the minister is on top of things. Actually, I don't have too much of a problem with the first statement as long as it's made clear that creationism is to be used as an example of a non-scientific approach to explaining the world around us.

More astronomy soon, I promise!

Patrick in hospital

2006-03-08T10:36:00.000Z

I don't want to comment too much on this story, but did want to say that we're expecting Patrick back in the saddle (as it were) for the next program. He's being well looked after, and I'm looking forward to seeing him back at home soon.

Jupiter's Red SpotS

2006-03-07T16:59:00.000Z

NASA report from amateur observations that Jupiter may have a second semi-permenant red spot, formed from the collision of three smaller ovals back in 2000. Whether it hangs around or not, I'm looking forward to seeing the imaging results as it develops, and it's a reminder that Jupiter's now in the morning sky.

I remember a viewing session a few years ago when the (old) Great Red Spot faded to the extend that it appeared almost invisible through my six-inch reflector (although you could still see its effects on the belt, and the spot itself through larger telescopes). One of those moments when the Universe surprises us, which makes it worth watching.

Saturn and Stardust in Maidenhead

2006-03-04T09:28:00.000Z

Lectured last night to Maidenhead AS, continuing the curse which means that all speaker meetings are on clear nights. We managed to do some real astronomy, looking at Saturn after I'd finished wittering about cosmology.

Someone there (hello Vicky) reminded me about the Stardust@home project which is calling for volunteers to help look for particles returned from a comet. The start has been delayed, but I recommend you all take part.

Sky at Night tonight...

EXTRA Sky at Night 2

2006-03-02T16:23:00.000Z

The second of our two BBC4 specials goes out on Monday as part of a slightly esoteric Sun night (to accompany last Monday's moon night).

This means the 'regular' program, which features Saturn news from Cassini together with amateur imaging from Pete Lawrence, Damian Peach, Dave Tyler and Ian Sharp, won't be repeated as normal on Monday night on BBC4.

Instead, it seems those of you with digital can catch the program EARLY on Saturday night at 7pm.

I think digital television might be too complicated for me.

The Science Museum circa 1990

2006-02-28T08:02:00.000Z

Londonist have just picked up on the planetarium story, but make some excellent points about the Science Museum too. I've always wondered about the lack of interest in their astronomy exhibits (as opposed to the Spaceflight section) - a couple of years ago they were still showing the original design for the International Space Station which made the one now under construction seem rather feeble. British scientists have been doing amazing things recently - we've just recorded Sunday's program about Cassini-Huygens and it would be great to see that reflected in our national museum.

EXTRA Sky at Night

2006-02-22T10:26:00.000Z

In case you haven't spotted it, next Monday night (the 27th) is Moon night on BBC4. This includes a bonus Sky at Night which includes some fabulous images taken through Patrick's telescopes, and Allan Chapman being let loose with a catapult.

Also worth catching on the same night is the program about the Apollo landings, which includes recovered footage (long believed lost) of the BBC's coverage of the momentous event. Having had a sneak preview I can safely say that - especially for those of us not around the first time round - it'll be fascinating.

All this plus the Clangers (at Patrick's request!) and Wallace and Grommit, together with the film that launched a thousand hoaxes. What more could you want?

P.S. Sun night follows a week later...

Philosophy and Cosmology: After George Ellis

2006-02-22T08:26:00.000Z

Inspired by this paper a few of us at UCL have begun thinking through some of the problems. I'll try and summarize things here as I think that attempting to answer some of these fundamental questions provides a nice illustration of what we do and do not know.

The first problem George Ellis brings up is the simple fact of the uniqueness of the Universe. This has profound consequences; cosmology on the largest scale is not an experimental science (we can't rerun the history of the Universe and see what happens) and it is not even a comparable one in the way that, say, galaxy formation is. If you want to know how galaxies form you can compare many different galaxies, each of which evolved more or less independently.

This means that it's impossible to establish large-scale laws of physics for the Universe. For example, it is a fundamental assumption of modern cosmology that the Universe is homogeneous, with material smoothly distributed on the largest scales. Although we can imagine testing the extent to which this is true, we will never be able to establish whether this had to have been so, or whether it's just a cosmic coincidence.

This issue comes up a lot already. The results from WMAP's studies of the cosmic microwave background indicate that there is less power than expected on large scales. Is this an example of 'cosmic variance' - our Universe just happening to be different from the 'average' on these large scales?

But there's another problem. I've talked about our Universe being 'average' but from our perspective within it it is the only one we can ever experience, see or test. How, then, do we define average?

This sort of reasoning does not threaten the conclusions of the currently standard cosmological model, but it does challenge us to think carefully about the limits on our knowledge. There will be much more to come over the next few months on this subject, so please comment and let me know if you're interested (or not!).

Lectures online

2006-02-16T14:33:00.000Z

Following a couple of requests, I've put the pdf versions of the powerpoint to two popular talks online, should anyone want a look.

Cosmology for the Terrified
The First Stars

Professional seeing

2006-02-15T13:40:00.000Z

In response to a comment left on a post below, yes it was very windy in Hawai'i which did interfere with the seeing conditions (as did the nearly full moon on that trip). More generally, though, what professionals want from an observing site can be different from amateur requirements. Most modern large optical telescopes allow a breeze to pass through the telescope - you can see the slits designed for just this purpose on this picture of the VLT. This helps to keep seeing steady and the mirrors clean, but of course a strong breeze is severely detrimental to a small telescope with a closed tube, as Damian found out when trying to image from just next to the VLT.

On the summit of Mauna Kea, with the Moon out of the way the sky is stunning. But only when you hyperventilate a little to get enough oxygen into your lungs - otherwise the altitude ensures the sky is somewhat disappointing. The best views I've had from Hawai'i have been down at the lodge when you can walk out of a fully lit room and see the Milky Way straight away.

Update : Thanks to Kaustav Bhattachar for pointing out my broken links. It all works now.

Hawaii Broadcast

2006-02-08T11:54:00.000Z

It's probably a little late to plug this, but a round of comments on the Hawaii program reminded me to say that the last repeat of the Hawai'i program is on BBC2 on Saturday, at 12.45. All comments welcome.

That means that January's program should be online soon, along with the last few year's worth.

Dark Matter Matters

2006-02-06T09:16:00.000Z

This story, well-handled in both the Guardian and the BBC, has been brewing for a while. Gerry Gilmore told us a little about the results back in November 2004 when we filmed the Chile program, but it's still slightly shocking to see in print. The following all comes with the disclaimer that there doesn't appear to be a paper yet available.

The fact that there is much missing mass in the Universe has been known for decades - the classic indicator is the fact the spiral galaxies don't rotate as you'd expect if the luminous disk contained all the matter. For years the arguments raged between those who believed in MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects - ie many small, faint planets or other blobs of normal matter) and WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). Eventually, surveys suggested that there was no evidence for MACHOs and so we were left with a mysterious particle which had only been detected via its gravitational influence on the rest of the Universe. Large simulations, like these appeared to confirm that whatever the dark matter was, it had to be cold - able to form small clumps - otherwise it seemed impossible to produce a Universe that looks like the one around us.

That last result is what these new observations, of small galaxies surrounding the Milky Way, cast doubt on. By studying the way the stars in these structures are influenced by the dark matter, the researchers were able to build up an idea of where it is. They found that essentially it lies in large blocks, and refuses to split into smaller chunks in order to agree with the simulations. This isn't a blow for dark matter per se - we're just learning more about how it actually behaves, about its physics. But it is a problem for our nice models of how galaxies form around the dark matter, and it will be interesting to see how the modellers respond.

It's also my feeling that this is a boost for those working on MOND - modifying the theory of gravity to get rid of the need for extra particles, although you'd need to be more of a MOND expert than I to comment on whether this result is reproducible by MOND.

In short - isn't it great when the Universe isn't as we expect?

Death of a Dome

2006-02-01T10:10:00.000Z

Reading about the closure of the London Planetarium in the Independent yesterday struck me as just sad. It's fair to say that I haven't paid it much attention since visiting five or so years ago, which is a terrible indictment in itself, I suppose.

Then Today rang and invited me to go and see a show and comment. Which is where I started receiving unpleasant surprises. For starters, the show is now 15 minutes (if that) instead of the full 45 minutes or an hour, and is part of the whole Tussauds package. That means that it costs something like Â£18 (the figure I was quoted as an 'average' adult price) to get in. When you do, there is no attempt to put the planetarium in context with the rest of the exhibits, it just stands as a 'take it or leave it' proposition. In these circumstances, it's not surprising that 'only' 30% of visitors take up the chance to see the show (mind you, that's still something like 600,000 people a year).

The show itself was okay, but it wasn't a planetarium show. There was not a single reference to the night sky, but instead a rapid tour through the solar system which, while it looked good will fail to impress anyone who has ever been in an IMAX. It was obviously designed to be played on a loop with no need for updating, topical references and information or the input of any astronomers. At over Â£1 a minute per person, is there any wonder that they're not getting the kind of regular visitors that they used to, back when a trip to the planetarium was the cost of a cinema ticket.

Now, obviously Tussauds are a commercial organisation, and what they do with their space is sadly their business. But having run the planetarium into the ground, moved it so far away from what a planetarium should and could be (especially given such an incredible building) to blame the closure on a lack of public interest really sticks in my throat. I hope that came across on the radio this morning, even it has been swallowed by the Guardian in today's leader.

For the record, the reason the Today program piece was twseparatete interviews was because Tussauds refused to have a conversation with me on air.

Greenwich have a new planetarium opening next year. I can't wait.

Of Pandas and IDiots

2006-01-31T09:29:00.000Z

This makes me extremely angry. And it's dangerous too. In the US, when the religious lobby attempt to import creationism into science classes, there's the constitutionally defined separation between church and state to fall back on, and so it is sufficient to demonstrate in court that Intellegent Design/Creationism is not science. British schools have no such protection, and if the government really does intend to hand over some say about the curriculum to private bodies we might be dealing with groups of British schoolchildren being fundamentally mislead over the status of evolutionary theories sooner than you might think.

Rather than rebut everything myself, have a look at the excellent Panda's Thumb, especially the record of Fuller's comments in the trial itself.

Rant to the Guardian follows. It's only this short because it's early, and I have a job interview to prepare for.

Dear Sir

I was disturbed to see the coverage awarded to Prof Fuller in today's Education Guardian, a feeling accentuated by the uncritical nature of the report. To take a single example, Fuller is allowed to claim that despite his pro-'Intellegent Design' stance that he 'draws the line at
creationism'. However, one of the main conclusions to emerge from the recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania was that ID is merely a foil for creationists seeking a new way to work their philosophy into science classes. The first book to systematically use the term 'intellegent
design', 'Of Pandas and People', was created (intellegently or otherwise) from its predecessors simply by judicious use of the find and replace function, turning every mention of the word 'creationism' with 'intellegent design'. Good marketing, but ID is no more science than
creationism, and to draw a distinction between the two is simply misleading.

Prof Fuller also points out that 'if you were having a science studies class, all the things I was saying would be completely normal'. Here we agree, but if he wants to campaign to introduce science studies into the school curriculum shouldn't he do that directly instead of subverting
biology?

Astronomy from another planet

2006-01-26T10:02:00.000Z

An excellent lecture last night at the BAA by Doug Ellison who is doing incredible things with images from the Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity. He highlighted a result I hadn't seen before - Spirit's image of the Orion Nebula. It may not look much, but astronomy from the surface of another planet impressed me!

More Sun Fun

2006-01-25T13:40:00.000Z

A wonderful sequence of images from Pete Lawrence obtained as part of the Sun program filming yesterday. Using a hydrogen-alpha filter it was possible to view the gas 2000km or so above the visible surface of the Sun (the 'photosphere') and see the kind of prominences only normally on show at an eclipse.

We also got to use a calcium filter provided by John Adair, which was a new experience for me and showed sunspot groups in the process of changing and evolving.

Filming with 'Mr Eclipse'

2006-01-24T20:00:00.000Z

Have been filming for the BBC4 special on the Sun - to be broadcast on the 20th February as part of a two-part series (the other is on the Moon, was filmed earlier in the year and is excellent) - which included an interview with Fred Espernak. He showed us what I think is the best picture of totality I've ever seen.

It was taken from the deck of a ship in the Pacific in an extremely short totality (less than minute) and is a composite of seven different shots. The ship apparently was rocking all over the place and Fred didn't even get a chance to look at the Sun. For Turkey in March I won't be ruining my second totality (and hopefully the first clear one) by looking through a viewfinder. He's seen fourteen, so I'm glad he missed this one visually.

incidentally, I'd like to hear from anyone who is going to be viewing the March eclipse as part of our preparation for the program we're making about it. Just leave a note in the comments or drop me an email.

Only here for the atmosphere?

2006-01-18T10:45:00.000Z

With NASA's New Horizons probe to Pluto about to take off (with any luck) I can't help but think that it's a few years too late. Assuming it can be launched by early February, it will swing by Jupiter and arrive at the ninth 'planet' in nine years time, which is pretty fast. However, the concept of a Pluto mission has been seriously discussed since the end of the Voyager grand tour and it's always been pitched as a race against time - Pluto's tenuous atmosphere is expected to freeze onto the surface as the planet moves away from the Sun (making Pluto effectively a comet, albeit in a low-eccentricity orbit). The last perihelion was in 1989, so more than twenty years before the probe's arrival. With four of the six instruments which are going to study the "planet" looking at the atmosphere, it's going to be pretty dull if the atmosphere is sitting on the surface. Recent results show that Pluto's largest satellite, Charon, has no atmosphere which may suggest the freeze-out has already occurred.

I hope I'm wrong, and of course there is a proposed extended mission to several other large outer-solar system bodies. But it does seem like a shame that it's been left so late.

Halo around the Moon

2006-01-17T14:53:00.000Z

Made it back to London after a fairly uneventful flight back. We did head into downtown San Francisco, but as I was terminally sleep deprived I'm afraid it seemed like a dream. A dream featuring a world famous prison, so par for the course really!

One of the memories of Mauna Kea that sticks is the sight of a gorgeous halo around the Moon. While not exactly rare, it was the first time I'd seen something like this with the Moon overhead, and it was a deeply erie experience to be standing underneath this ring of light. A sci-fi director's dream to say the least!

It seems from the Sky at Night mailbox that haloes have been common in the UK over the last week or so, too, so for the record the explanation is due to ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. The hexagonal shape of the crystals refracts the light by 22 degrees, which is the radius of the halo.

2006-01-13T20:27:00.000Z

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

HARPing on about the JCMT

2006-01-13T20:13:00.000Z

As will probably be obvious in the final program that we're filming out here, I have a very strong affection for the JCMT as it's the telescope that I've used for my own observations. It was wonderful to be sitting in the control room yesterday as the scientists from Cambridge worked on commissioning the new receiver HARP-B which is going to producing amazing results in the next few years or so. Esentially, it's a spectrograph sensitive to a whole range of molecular transitions but it has one feature which makes it a huge improvement on previous instrumentation - it produces an image and then takes many thousands of spectra, one for each pixel in the image. There's a lot of work still to be done but the first results - on a bright line in Orion - look promising and I can't wait to attempt to get my hands on it.

Spectra and spectrographs get buried under the avalanche of wonderful images, but are often responsible for much of the exciting science. Expect to hear much more about HARP results on the Sky at Night before too long!

Which came first?

2006-01-12T15:07:00.000Z

Just about to go back to the summit to film sunrise, but had to share UKIRT's image of the chicken nebula. An imposing presence, especially when I kept catching his/her gaze out the corner of my eye while trying to conduct an interview.

However, as this is a region in which stars are forming and the Egg Nebula is a planetary (marking the end of a Sun-like star's life) we can definitively conclude that the chicken does come before the egg.

Gemini North

2006-01-10T18:11:00.000Z

Wonderful day up on the mountain yesterday visiting Gemini North. There are new photos up on the Flickr stream including an excellent shot (if I do say so myself) of Gemini open and ready for the night. The sides of the dome open up to allow a smooth flow of air, keeping the mirror clean and the seeing stable. Or at least that's the theory - there was a freezing wind last night and once they'd opened up the sides to show off for the camera they were quickly shut again.

Sunset on the mountain is spectacular - none of my photos (yet!) do it justice, but this is an amazing image of the Moon rising through the shadow of Mauna Kea.

Hello from Hawaii

2006-01-09T19:17:00.000Z

Halfway up the mountain in the astronomer's residence, waiting to go up to the summit to film the first of the four pieces about various telescopes.

We did go up yesterday to have a look around - photos on flickr. It's great to be back up here although I have to say I'm feeling very envious of the scientists actually using these telescopes. More tomorrow.

Aurora in Soft X-Rays

2006-01-05T15:15:00.000Z

A nice result from NASA's Chandra telescope, showing Earth's aurorae in low energy x-rays for the first time. A nice picture for the next time I lecture on a flight to see the Northern Lights, and a nice contrast to the Jovian aurora Chandra observed a while back.

Off to one of my favourite places in the world tomorrow - next post from Hawai'i (barring airport delays).

2006-01-04T15:26:00.000Z

Starting with a bang?

Saved from the usual pretenious first post explaining how this blog will change the world by an interesting news story claiming a detection of the impact of a Taurid meteroid on the surface of the Moon. While this looks interesting, a comment Patrick made a few years back (when there were similar claims about the Leonids) springs to mind: would the typical particle size in a meteor stream be big enough to cause this large an explosion?

Meteor streams are essentially made up of material expelled from comets. As Deep Impact showed, comets are icy - there's not much rock around and lumps don't get thrown off. So where would whatever hit the Moon - presumably substantial - have come from?