Bad Idea

Starting a More Serious Blog

Now that I am settled in my new job, I have decided to try to develop some ideas that I've been kicking around for a while. One is to start a wiki to facilitate research, by providing background on what is needed to carry out successful experiments, and software algorithms and examples of how to use them. Since my expertise is (still) astronomy, I decided to pitch it to astronomers, and have started astrohow.org. Unfortunately, it turns out to take a lot of time and energy to provide the information that I have in mind, so that project isn't getting too far.

I have also decided to take up science writing as a hobby, now that it isn't part of my job. I have started a new blog, which is meant to be more serious and technical than this one. I'm sure it will devolve in short order, however.

Finally, as another way to practice science writing, I have put together a series of pages describing some concepts in astronomy. I'm thinking of adding a few other things as well. One idea is to provide short explanations of why scientists believe in their major theories, such as the Big Bang and evolution. Another is some pages on energy consumption and efficiency, which Thandi may help me with.

Anyway, I expect most of my future writing to end up in the new space.

Is Pluto a Planet? You Decide!

Flow charts are all the rage on the internet these days, or so I've been told. They are also used at my new job. Im guessing that is because the engineers we sometimes have to deal with are used to visualizing systems as block diagrams. Anyway, that got me thinking, Could one of the most publicized astronomical controversies of the last few years be clarified using a flow chart? Here is the result: a flow chart to help you decide whether Pluto should be a planet. 

(For instructions on reading a flow chart, see xkcd).

For those seriously interested in the debate, here's what it boils down to. Most astronomers are concerned with very large questions: how the universe evolves from the Big Bang (cosmology), how galaxies form from the cooling plasma produced by the Big Bang, how stars form within Galaxies, and how the debris surrounding newly-formed stars coalesces into planets. 

For planet formation, the broad question is how dust grains that are less than a micron in size coagulate to form bodies thousands of kilometers across --- an increase in size of a factor of 100 trillion. This process probably has two steps, roughly speaking. First, objects the size of boulders and mountains must be formed. This probably happens slowly, as things collide and stick together. Eventually, something will get big enough that its gravity starts collecting other small bodies, accelerating its growth rapidly until it forms a full-fledged planet. 

We now know that Pluto is a member of the Kuiper belt --- a group of bodies of icy material that has stuck together to form objects with sizes ranging from boulders to mountains. Pluto is one of the largest members, and is interesting because it has enough gravity that it pulled itself into a round shape. Unlike the other planets, however, it did not get big enough to collect much of the material in its orbit. Therefore, it exists among a family of bodies that are similar to the asteroids, but that are icy instead of rocky. For this reason, some members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted that Pluto should not be called a planet.

However, as I mentioned, Pluto is unusual among the Kuiper belt objects in that it has enough gravity to make itself round. In this sense, it is similar to other planets. Pluto probably has more interesting geology than other Kuiper belt objects, so it is useful to study it as an exceptional object. For this reason, and for the historical fact that we have called it a planet for about 75 years, many people feel it should keep its status as a planet. 

The IAU compromised to some degree, calling Pluto a "dwarf planet", along with the asteroid Ceres, and (as of 2009) three other Kuiper belt objects, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake. 

Of course, this doesn't make everyone happy. That's why we need a flow chart.

Kittens of the Sea

I only wish that I had the comic genius to think of this first. Unfortunately, it appears that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are ernest. PETA has started a campaign to call fish, "sea kittens," because "Nobody would hurt a sea kitten." I could talk about how silly it is for PETA to personify (kittenify?) fish, but the site really speaks for itself. 

However, their campaign raises so many problems and possibilities, that I just have to mention a few that came to mind right away:

• One of my wife's friends wondered: what will they call catfish? Cat-sea-kittens?
• Should Wisconsin deal with the controversy around their law legalizing the hunting of feral cats by calling them "land-fish"?
• If the PETA "sea-kittens" campaign fails, should they start calling fish "sea-rats," because no one would want to eat a sea-rat? 
• What if the sea-rat campaign backfires, because governments start promoting the elimination of that aquatic vermin? 

Does PETA even realize the can of worms they've opened? 

I Like to Ride My Bicycle

There has been some talk on the web as to whether riding a bike uses more energy than driving a car. I decided to check the numbers, because my gut instinct was that it is way, way more efficient to move myself and a 20 pound bike to work, than it is to move myself and a 3000 pound pound car to work. I would have guessed, say, 100 times more efficient.

There are some analyses on the web, but they tend to miss things (i.e., where food comes from) or be unecessarily convoluted.

I start with our cars. A gallon of gas contains about 31,500 Calories per gallon. Our Prius is getting 40 mpg, which translates to 788 Calories per mile. My 1974 BMW gets at best 20 mpg, or 1575 Calories per mile. If I only drive it short distances, I get closer to 14 mpg, or 2250 Calories per mile. This has to be corrected for the amount of energy needed to extract and refine petroleum so one gets gas, but since roughly half of a barrel of oil can be converted into gas, I doubt the numbers different by more than a factor of two.

Riding a bicycle burns about 42 Calories per mile, if you're riding at a leisurely pace (10 mph). If I go faster, air resistance causes me to burn maybe 50% more. Some of this energy (roughly 8 calories) would be used anyway if I were just watching TV, to keep my brain warm. So, lets say 34 Calories per mile to ride a bike to work, instead of calling in sick. On the face of things, then, it would appear that cycling is at least 23 times more efficient that our Prius. However, food needs to be grown, packaged, and delivered. In the US, for an average diet, every Calorie you eat took about 10-15 Calories of energy to grow, package, distribute, and prepare (link). So, it really takes at least 340 Calories per mile to ride a bike.

Now, cycling has other advantages that one could incorporate. For instance, I will be more healthy. Although some seem to claim this is bad for the environment --- if I live longer, my energy-intensive lifestyle is prolonged --- I think this argument is specious (killing myself is NOT an acceptable solution to our environmental problems!). Of course, bicycles cost a lot less energy to manufacture, but since we insist on having both a car and a bicycle (my wife won't let me carry our daughter on my bike), that point seems a bit moot as well.

Therefore, riding a bike is only about 2 times more efficient than driving a single person in a Prius, and about 4-5 times more efficient than a more ordinary car (assuming my BMW is ordinary, which it is not, because it is one of the best cars ever made!).

Now, if I carpooled, I'd be using the same energy to drive as to cycle. A full Prius would be 2 times more efficient! A scooter, at 70 mpg, is equally efficient as a bicycle. Cycling isn't as green as I thought, because our system for producing and distributing food is inefficient! To really make a difference, I'd need to ride my bike AND buy my food from local sources.

As a corollary, I now understand why machines will end up ruling the earth, and why the premise of The Matrix is really dumb. Meatbags waste energy!

Baby Gewndolyn has arrived

Our first child, Gwendolyn Iyanu, was born June 7, 2007, at 6:19 am. She was 7 lbs, 15 oz. She scored a 9.9/10.0 on Apgar test, which means she was very alert and responsive. We are all very happy.

Thandi and Mike Will Be Parents!

We found out today that Thandi is 6 1/2 months pregnant! By June, we will have a baby girl!

Now, you might be asking yourself, why did we only learn that today?

It is a long story, although in a few months it will probably be hilarious. For the past few years, Thandi had some symptoms that led a couple doctors to conclude that she had a condition that would make it hard for her to become pregnant (ovarian cysts). Some of those symptoms got worse last September, and in addition Thandi started feeling nauseous and fatigued. She went to her doctor (a M.D.-Ph.D at UCLA, who is also an assistant professor) and had a standard pregnancy test that turned up negative. Her doctor diagnosed her as having a mild stomach virus.

Over the next few months, her symptoms persisted, and she returned to her doctor several times. In November, she had to see another doctor because her first had an emergency, and that second doctor prescribed an ultrasound, because she thought she felt something in Thandi's abdomen. Thandi had the ultrasound taken on December 1, but when she called back a few days later to get the results, no one could give them to her. Her doctor didn't return multiple calls and faxes, so by the end of December, Thandi decided to switch doctors.

She finally got a new doctor, and an appointment near the middle of January. However, although the new doctor got most of Thandi's medical records from the old one, the ultrasound was nowhere to be found. Thandi told her new doctor all of her symptoms, and added that she wasn't pregnant (based on the diagnosis in September). The new doctor suggested Thandi see a metabolic specialist.

In the last week, Thandi started to feel the kicking from what we now know is a baby girl. Worried, she made more efforts to get her ultrasound. She ended up calling the patient advocate at UCLA medical, who faxed her the report from the ultrasound. There it was, on one sheet of paper, clearly written: on December 1, Thandi was 14 weeks pregnant. And no one bothered to let her know. Thandi watches a lot of Discovery Health Channel shows, so given the past diagnoses that suggested she would have a hard time getting pregnant, you can only imagine the theories she had come up with for her illness. The news was a shock and a relief.

This morning, we went to another doctor, and OB-GYN, and had an ultrasound taken. The baby seems to be an active, 2 1/2 pound girl. We'll be having the standard tests done in the next few weeks, but everything seems to be working out fine.

An Echo of Light from Matter Devoured by a Black Hole

I just did my second press conference, at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Seattle. It was the last day, and there weren't many people left at the conference, but that turned out to be good --- my result was the best of the news offerings that day!

I found evidence that the black hole at the center of our Galaxy devoured a small amount of mass (equivalent to the planet Mercury. . . or Pluto, for the stubborn) about 70 years ago. I identified an echo produced as light traveled away from the black hole. The light encountered gas and dust, and was reflected towards us. Because of the length of time it took for the light to reach the clouds before it was reflected, we see the echoes long after the original source of the light had disappeared.

It had long been thought that this phenomena caused gas to fluoresce near the Galactic center. The new aspect of this was that we saw the echo move over the course of three years, as the "ripple" of light moved across the cloud.

The original press release was produced by the Chandra X-ray Center. The work was also covered at geeky repositories of science news like space.com, New Scientist, and by the always-popular (if nothing else) FOX news.

Best of all, though, New Scientist did an interview, and it is available as a Podcast! (Link) I feel like this could be the start of my fifteen minutes of fame! Why, having a Podcast was number 6 on my list of things to do before I make a new list! Of course, number 1 is being on the Daily Show. . . Jon Stewart, are you bored and reading this?

Our Governmet: Protecting Unborn Lives from Astronomers

My next-door neighbor Stan just bought a computer with his research grant, and while he was away one day the secretary came into his office and affixed a UCLA property sticker on his computer. This was a little odd, because UCLA has stopped keeping track of inexpensive computer equipment. It turns out that his grant was administered by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and they wanted UCLA to keep track of the computer. So, OK, it made sense.

But then a government auditor came by yesterday, to confirm the existence of the computer, and affix a couple more stickers, as shown in this image. Stan of course asked, "What's the bottom one?" The auditor told him that it was to prevent the computer from being used for non-registered human embryonic stem cell research (hESC). Stan thought it was a joke, but apparently the auditor had no sense of humor.

Stan does study the birth places of stars and planets, but he doesn't think the prohibition against working with stem cells will significantly impact his research. However, we're all now wondering whether he'll be able to look at the this link from his computer.

And we're all just really impressed at how our government defends its principles.

Lost in Conversion

For the tenth anniversary of the orbiting X-ray observatory the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, I made a new version of the All-Sky Monitor Movie an animation showing how the X-ray sky looked every 12 hours over the last decade. The original version was made by Don Smith (now at Guilford colloge) and I, under the supervision of Ed Morgan, Al Levine, and Hale Bradt at MIT. A description of the movie, along with the movie itself (which is 41 MB large) is on my (slightly more) professional site.

This being a weblog, it is my opportunity to gripe a bit. I spent several days on the new movie, which is not much time compared to the months it takes me to complete my usual research projects, but it was my vacation time. I had to get Ed Morgan to recover the original routines to make the individual frames off of a back-up, because the disk they were on recently died, and then modify the routine so that the images looked less "Dr. Who-ey" as someone put it. Then I needed to track down a program to compile them as an mpeg (the MJPEG tools worked well). I was happy with how it turned out.

I then turned it over to NASA, so they could put out a press release. It was in the "top 10 most e-mailed news articles" on Yahoo for like 20 minutes early on a Saturday morning! However, if you have the badwidth to spare, you'll see that when they converted it to MOV and SWF formats (what's SWF? is it for a personal ad?), it looks like crap.

Oh, well. I didn't expect to be up for "best animated short" later this month, anyway. . .

Astrophysical Data, Old School

A couple years back, a friend found a box of glass slides at MIT that had been created for a presentation in the 60's or very early 70's. That's way before PowerPoint was invented, and perhaps even before 35 mm slides. In fact, it was also clearly before computerized data collection systems.

Here is a scanned image of the slide that caught my attention. It was apparently created to display how data was collected on an experiement that was launched on a rocket flight. The data was recorded by taking time-lapse photos of instruments that one might find on a lab bench!

The top image contains a circular chamber with radial tracks in it, which is probably bubble chamber that recorded the arrival of protons and electrons, along with a gauge at the center of the bubble chamber to record the pressure. The bottom image contains a line that is probably from an oscilliscope, and an analog stopwatch to record the time at which the image was taken.

Based on what was going on at that time at MIT, my guess is that it was one of the early experiments to study cosmic rays from the sun or X-rays from astronomical sources.