One Astronomer's Noise

Entries from May 2009

A Truly "Dirty Job"

May 20, 2009 · 4 Comments

I’ve been working on lots of good (hopefully) stuff for work and also on a longer post of some importance… but a distraction is needed. Sent to me by the lovely Gail, it’s Mike Rowe, of Discovery Channel’s “Dirty Jobs,” in 1992, selling stuff (to put it nicely) on QVC…

Holy. Hilarious. Batman. Anyone feel like he and John Stewart had the same hair in the 90s?  There are a bunch of these videos well worth watching, including the lava lamp and Mike singing “My Way.”  Just as entertaining then as he is today.

Okay, off to finally see Star Trek! I’ll be in Philly all next week, including the Penn&Teller show at Harrah’s in Atlantic City on Saturday night. It’s a skeptic meetup, donchaknow? For the Skeptics in CVille, don’t forget there’s a meeting Saturday to plan upcoming events and talk about the future direction for our group.

Categories: general · skeptic
Tagged: , , , ,

A nod to STS-125

May 15, 2009 · 3 Comments

Astronomers in my department are anxiously and excitedly watching the events unfold from the space shuttle mission to repair Hubble this week.  HST has been a fantastically productive scientific instrument, and many people are hoping it will continue to revolutionize how we think of the universe for a few more years.  My personal favorite has to be the “M-sigma” relation, or the fact that everywhere we look, we seem to find a supermassive black hole in the center of every galaxy with a bulge.  Not only that, but the black hole size and galaxy mass are correlated!  This is somewhat surprising, since the mass of the black hole is such a tiny fraction of the entire galaxy’s mass, its gravitational influence is only important in the very central core.  From this, we can improve our models of galaxy formation and evolution.  This is important since, after all, galaxies make stars and stars have planets and planets have us!

Of course, those who know me know that I’m just as fascinated by astronomical instrumentation as by the science itself.  I really do want to know HOW astronomers came to their conclusions by getting to the heart of the data taking process.  So it was fitting that I made my first field trip to Green Bank in months to work on PAPER, the low frequency telescope that aims to detect hydrogen from the early universe, at the same time that the crew of STS-125 was first grappling with Hubble.

I have quite an appreciation for the engineers and scientists that build and maintain our large telescopes.  Not only do the instruments have to be sensitive and stable for scientific observations, but they need to be structurally sound and come in at least close to budget.  Maintaining a telescope is no easy task either.  But imagine everything that we do to keep a telescope running, and do it IN SPACE.  Squeezing my already tiny fingers into a small space to release some SMA connectors, I couldn’t help but think, “At least I’m not doing this in spacesuit gloves.”  As I curse at myself for dropping a tiny screwdriver into the equipment rack, I think, “Well, it won’t float away!”  Driving the diesel Jeep over the muddy field to the equipment hut is less exciting than taking a rocket into orbit, but it is more convenient and safer.  Needless to say, I admire and respect the crew of STS-125 and all astronauts that risk life and limb and go through countless hours of training to prepare themselves for space and for science.

I will say, however, that they probably didn’t find a territorial wasp protecting a nest when they opened up Hubble this week.  But I wouldn’t be doing radio astronomy properly if I wasn’t dealing with some sort of wild pest, right?

(Oh, did I mention that I got to hang out with Bob Wilson, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of the Cosmic Microwave Background? Yeah, that was cool.  He was in Green Bank for a design review, and it was quite generous to sit around and chat with us grad students and young scientists at night.  He’ll happily retell the story of the CMB detection and also about his current work with sub-mm VLBI, like the recent work on Sgr A*.  Thanks to Paul for letting me know that you guys were all hanging out in the lounge!)

Categories: astronomy
Tagged: , ,

Look out, it's "Death from the Skies!"

May 15, 2009 · 8 Comments

So if you are one of those who have wandered over to my blog from time to time, surely you know of the Bad Astronomer. He’s not “bad” in the “good vs. bad” sense, more like “badass.” Well, actually, Phil Plait became known for his book and website, “Bad Astronomy” which debunked popular astronomy myths and misunderstandings. He has continued to be an advocate for science, astronomy, and skepticism, and in 2008 came out with his second book, Death from the Skies! I finally got a chance to read the book earlier this year, and I’m just now getting around to writing my thoughts on this excellent book! I blame grad school.

To start off, it has a crazy, scary cover, with monster-movie type font and all. I can’t even say the name of the book without slipping into a dramatic tone of voice. You may get funny looks while reading it in public, but that just opens up for conversation about how cooool science is!

Whoa.

Each chapter in the book covers some doomsday scenario involving an astronomical event, from asteroids, to gamma ray bursts, to the end of the universe itself.  The chapter begins with a short story of mayhem, destruction, and death.  It reads like the summary of a disaster flick, and some passages seriously gave me chills.

The active group of sunspots fades away… Just as things on Earth start to settle, and people are able to bury the dead, another group of ugly sunspots begins to build on the star’s surface.

You can almost hear the ominous music.  If you are going to read this book, don’t read it alone in your apartment late at night unless you don’t want to be able to sleep… like I did. Or at least read until you get the comforting parts.

What can be comforting about massive extinctions and the end of everything we know?  Well, unlike most disaster shows you see on TV, Phil goes into the actual science behind these events, and then the probabilities that these things will actually happen to us in the conceivable future.  Lest you forget, the author actually has his PhD in astronomy.  One thing I can tell you about the astronomy program at UVa, you learn a little bit of everything in astronomy, and you really get put through the paces.  Armed with that knowledge and his own fantastic ability to make science accessible, Phil writes a book that terrifies AND teaches.  By reading this book, you will cover stellar life cycles, relativity, astrobiology, cosmology, and more.

This was the first popular astronomy book I’ve picked up in years.  I used to read astronomy and physics books voraciously, but at some point in college, I got tired of reading about what I did for work when it was my fun time.  For a return to the genre, this was an excellent pick. Though it’s been some time since I passed my astronomy qualifying exams, I still remember how most things in astronomy work.  However, Phil goes into such fascinating detail that I was never bored.  Not to mention, his method of explaining concepts in a way that is accessible and without confusing jargon is admirable.  For example, I could probably still trace out the evolutionary path of a star of a given mass and talk about the various stages well enough.  However, explaining this process to a student or layperson can be tricky, and yet the explanation of this in the supernova chapter is so physically intuitive, that I think I’ll take that to my next lesson.

The science is accessible, the scenarios are terrifying, and the tone is overall conversational and entertaining.  As readers of the BA blog know, there will be many, many puns!  Most of them are in the chapter subheading or footnotes, but watch out! One might smack you in the face from out of nowhere…

So for astronomers, astronomy enthusiasts, and anyone who is tired of those doomsday “science” shows that have very little science, go get this book.  There is something for everyone, no matter what level of scientific literacy you have.  Heck, this book would make a fantastic extra credit project for an introductory astronomy class!  My only criticism… no color pictures! We love pretty pictures in astronomy, and many of the black-and-white pictures in the book would benefit from having their color versions in one of those glossy center insert sections.

Seriously, go read it! And soon we can rock out to Geo’s musical version…

And of course, this week… Carnival of Space #102 presented by the Spacewriter!

Categories: astronomy · science
Tagged: , ,

Eureka! …A Review

May 7, 2009 · 3 Comments

“Eureka!”

It’s a phrase connected with scientific discovery.  Roughly meaning, “I have found it!” the story goes that Archimedes proclaimed it down the streets while running naked after realizing that his volume displaced an equal volume of water from his bathtub.  (Streaking, part of the scientific legacy. Tell your friends.) It is also the name of a TV series on the SciFi (that’s its true name dammit) Channel.  I’ve started watching it as part of my Netflix rotation, and have just finished season 1.  (You can also find all of season 1, and part of the most recent season 3, on Hulu in the US.)

“Eureka” is a cute story, though with a sometimes dark, shadowy undercurrent, about a town where the best and brightest scientific minds work to advance science, technology, and the nation’s defenses.  The kooky antics of the brilliant townspeople are juxtaposed with the serious, business-like, and sometimes morally ambiguous goals of the defense research.  The story is told from the viewpoint of the sheriff, a former US Marshall who was assigned to the town after coming across it by accident and helping a bizarre investigation.

Most of the story lines stretch the reality of science, but in a way that is too cute and fun to get all riled up about.  After all, it’s just good story-telling.  Some of the lines and stories, however, do touch scientific reality.  In the second to last episode of season 1, two of the characters argue between the pure goal of research versus the harsh realities of producing results to get funding.  Who is the better scientist, the purist, or the pragmatist?  No balance point is decided on, and it is a topic that funding agencies struggle with all the time.

In an earlier episode, one character explains Occam’s Razor to the sheriff.

Carter: Henry, please tell me you don’t believe in aliens.

Henry: No, I believe in Occam’s Razor. It’s the basis for methodological reductionism.

Carter: Oh yeah, so… still dizzy.

Henry: Okay, so, given two equally predictive theories, you choose the one that has fewer assumptions.  So, a tree has fallen in a forest after a storm. The first hypothesis holds that the tree was blown over by the storm.  The second rival hypothesis claims that the storm forced an alien spacecraft to crash into the tree.  See?

Carter: Y-no….

Sheriff Carter may not get it, but I squealed with delight. Finally, an explanation of Occam’s Razor in pop culture that is not simply “the simplest explanation is the best.”  That definition is misused by, for example, creationists who claim that “God did it” is simpler than evolutionary biology and is thus favored by Occam’s Razor.  It is the complexity of the assumptions that makes one explanation more favored than the other.  Henry also properly uses the term “hypothesis” rather than “theory” in his example, and implies that alien visitations on this planet to date are extremely unlikely.  Makes a girl smile.

Of course, one of the last episodes of the season, to my ear, misuses light-years as a unit of time. But I’ll even overlook that, though I cringed. Overall, it’s cute, entertaining, and relevant, so I recommend this show!

Speaking of science, Carnival of Space #101 is up at Robot Explorers.

Categories: fun
Tagged: , , ,

SciAm, You Disappoint Me

May 6, 2009 · 5 Comments

I recently subscribed to Scientific American with the intention of keeping up to date with a broad range of scientific topics, and reading their in-depth magazine articles to compliment the barrage of short news stories we get flooded with everyday. I’ve been pretty happy with that so far, and have also been getting their daily email updates on news stories, which I browse through if it looks interesting. Yesterday, there was a story called “Is Cellulite Forever?” with the tagline,

Some claim creams can bust the bulgy bane of many, whereas others swear by pricey procedures. But what is cellulite? And can it really be banished for good? A doctor gives the bottom line.

I have a really positive body image, in a large part thanks to bellydance. Nevertheless, when someone claims that they will shine a scientific spotlight on a topic that is related to beauty and is shrouded in so much pseudoscience, my interest is piqued. Imagine my surprise when the article interviewed an “osteopathic physician… [who] runs a clinic for mesotherapy (injections of homeopathic extracts, vitamins and/or medicine designed to reduce the appearance of cellulite).” Homeo-whatnow?

Homeopathy, briefly, is the belief that “like cures like” and that an extremely diluted solution of a substance that causes a symptom will cure that symptom.  Homeopathic remedies have virtually no trace of the so-called active ingredient in them, and thus fail every scientific study of their potency.  Not to mention, the very philosophy flies in the face of everything we know about physics and chemistry.  In a word, it’s pseudoscience.  So now, Scientific American is interviewing a doctor that espouses pseudoscience to talk about cellulite in a strictly scientific light?  My skeptical sense is in overdrive.

Unfortunately, I don’t know much about the science of cellulite and how it works.  In fact, that’s why I clicked on the link to the article!  Now, I’m motivated to learn more about it, in order to check on the claims presented in the interview.  Some portions seem reasonable, even testable, such as the origin of cellulite, why women may get more as they age, why it’s more prominent in women than men, etc.  If anyone can get back to me on the science behind those, I’d appreciate that! I’m very much a non-expert but curious.

But then he delves into some pretty heavy cultural biases, claiming that cellulite only became a problem in the 1970s because we became a sedentary culture and don’t work physically.  It appears to be based on anecdotal evidence of him finding old photographs or photographing women around the world.  (Excuse me, may I take a picture of your buttocks for research?)  Surely, calories in vs. calories burned has a lot to do with fat retention in the body as a whole (science!), but will eating organic foods, not working at a desk, and wearing a thong really reduce your cellulite? How does fat loss in general affect already thin women who have cellulite?

On the third page, my incredulity really spikes.  He talks about the use of various creams to target the fat itself that “transports fats into the [cells'] mitochondria to be used as energy” or “by blocking the making of fats by the alpha receptors.”  Last time I checked, creams do not target cells very far inside the body.  And although you may be able to firm up the skin itself, there appears to be no scientific proof that creams reduce cellulite.  Next he talks about sucking, rolling, even using radio waves to break up the fat.  You can find a bit on questionable cellulite reduction schemes at Quackwatch.  His claims are dubious, even if you look past the introduction.

Hey, I know how we can make cellulite problems go away!  Get over it. Proudly wear that bathing suit and show the world that we’re not all Barbie dolls.  Staying fit and healthy is a generally good thing. Worrying over the appearance of bumpy fat in the butt, not so important.  Until science-based medicine tells us that cellulite is a health threat, I won’t worry about mine.

And Scientific American?  Shame on you.  I expect your work to be held to a higher standard of scientific rigor.

UPDATES! Rebecca of Skepchick wrote a lovely post entitled “The Top 5 Things Wrong With SciAm’s Cellulite Article” and PZ Myers asks, “SciAm, how could you?“

Categories: science · skeptic
Tagged: , ,