November 2008

Drop, Cover, and Hold

On 10 a.m. Pacific time this Thursday, Los Angeles will be hit by a major earthquake. And how do we know this? Because it’s a pretend earthquake. I just received the following amusing/frightening email:

On Thursday, November 13, the Caltech community, along with millions of other Southern Californians in homes, schools, businesses, government offices, and public places, will participate in the Great Southern California ShakeOut Earthquake Drill. At 10 a.m., everyone is encouraged to drop, cover, and hold on for 120 seconds in simulation of a magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andreas Fault. Throughout the day, Caltech will conduct emergency preparedness drills on campus. Audio and video earthquake recordings, which have been created for use in your drop cover and hold drill, can be downloaded at http://www.shakeout.org/drill/broadcast.html.

Yes, the The Great Southern California ShakeOut. Complete with sound effects, suitable for downloading. Kind of like a good old-fashioned nuclear bomb drill. Just part of the price we pay for being able to eat outside in January.

Drop, Cover, and Hold Read More »

8 Comments

Will NASA Rise from the Ashes?

mars_phoenix.jpg NASA’s Phoenix Mars Lander, which some time back scraped up direct evidence of water on Mars’s surface, is slipping gently into the night. Not a surprise; the mission was always scheduled to last just a few months, and at this time of Martian year there just isn’t enough sunshine to keep the batteries charged.

Mission engineers last received a signal from the lander on November 2, the space agency said.

Rumor has it that the signal read “Yes We Can!”

The future of NASA is going to be one out of approximately 50 million pressing challenges faced by the new President. Under the previous administration (what was that guy’s name again? I seem to have repressed it), the agency drifted, ranging from embarrassing ideological scandals to hopelessly inept planning to blatant censorship on climate change to a depressing de-emphasis of real science. Obama, and whoever he appoints as NASA administrator, will have a very difficult job balancing competing pressures: rebuilding a science program that has been devastated by funding cuts, while also restoring our capacity to send astronauts into space, and doing so in a time of tremendous budgetary pressures. Darksyde at Daily Kos has a good post about what some of these challenges are, and some of the struggles of current administrator Michael Griffin. It will be very interesting to see what direction the agency takes; in a multipolar world, the U.S. won’t be the only important player in space exploration and space science, but hopefully we won’t just sit on the sidelines, either.

(Did you notice the link to an article on Discover at the beginning of that paragraph? That’s because, when I cut open a vein to sign our new blogging agreement in blood [don’t worry, it wasn’t my vein], part of the contract was that we would link back to the site in every single blog post we do. I’m sure nobody will notice.)

Will NASA Rise from the Ashes? Read More »

16 Comments

Welcome!

Faithful readers, welcome to our new digs here at Discover. And stalwart fans of Discover, welcome to Cosmic Variance. We are thrilled to hear that our change in color scheme portends the Death of the Blogosphere. Who knew we had such power? Blogs are yesterday’s news, anyway, but we’ll putter gamely on for a while, just to keep up appearances.

To any new readers who might wander by, feel free to poke around a bit to get a feeling for the place; the archives are accessible from the sidebar, and we also have an About page. This is an extremely bloggy blog, in the sense that we are guided by whatever we want to talk about at the moment, rather than any externally-imposed idea of what should be talked about. Everyone should read one of the following two paragraphs, but not the other one:

One of the features of Cosmic Variance is that we are all working scientists, whose main activity involves doing research. We try to bring some of the excitement and inside scoop of the research process as it occurs. True, we change things up now and then with non-scientific posts, but that’s the price you must pay to attract the eyeballs of the common folk; the meaty posts about the glory of Science will always be a mainstay (and you can even use equations!).

One of the features of Cosmic Variance is that we are all working scientists, but we are also human beings. We try to highlight the human side of the scientific enterprise as we explore the wider world of ideas. True, there are occasional technical posts about some point of current scientific contention, but that’s the price you must pay to keep your academic credibility; the playful, discursive, interdisciplinary excursions will always be the fun part of the blog.

Hope that makes everything clear.

There may be some shaking-out process as we complete the transition over to the new site, so let us know if things work less effortlessly than usual. (Some of the last few comments might have been lost — sorry about that.) We’re happy to have found a new home.

Welcome! Read More »

42 Comments

Please Pardon the Interruption While We Sell Out to the Man

Change we can believe in: starting Monday, Cosmic Variance will be bidding adieu to its life as a plucky independent blog, and huddle into the warm embrace of Discover Magazine. There will be a very brief transition period in which the blog disappears entirely, but hang in there — we’ll be back online before you know it.

Now, we know what you’re thinking: you knew us back when we were indie rock, keeping it real, and now we’re going all corporate? Yes, yes we are. If for no other reason than the thankless task of keeping the blog from crashing and handling the technical end of things will be put in someone else’s capable hands, not our clueless ones.

But there are other reasons. Hopefully the association with Discover will open up new opportunities, and bring new readers to our discussions. And we’re happy to be joining an elite community of blogs that are already up and running at Discover:

  • Bad Astronomy: Everyone knows Phil Plait and his enthusiastic dissections of what’s right and wrong in astronomy and much more.
  • The Loom: Carl Zimmer is another old friend, the go-to guywhen you have questions about E. coli (among other things).
  • Reality Base: a great blog by Melissa Lafsky on science, politics, and the wider world.
  • Science Not Fiction: Stephen Cass, Sam Lowry and Eric Wolff cover futuristic technologies in reality and in fiction.
  • Better Planet: Benjamin Nugent specializes in portents of disaster environmental news.
  • Discoblog: dispatches from the quirkier side of science.
  • 80 Beats: Eliza Strickland scoops up the best science news of the day, and doles it out in bite-sized morsels.

So what does this mean for you, our cherished readers? Nothing, pretty much. You should still be able to get here by pointing your browser at “http://cosmicvariance.com/”; indeed, all of the archives should still be available under their old addresses. Likewise the RSS feeds should work as before; in particular, go here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/feed

And of course our characteristic sprightly insouciance will continue undiminished. Admittedly, the glamorous blue theme we’ve sported since our humble beginnings will be traded in for an orange and white palate. But we’ve always been about the substance, not superficial appearances. Right?

Please Pardon the Interruption While We Sell Out to the Man Read More »

39 Comments

A Special Place in the Universe

Cosmologists find themselves in this interesting situation where they have a set of hypotheses — dark matter, dark energy, inflation — that serve to make impressively precise predictions that have been tested against a wide variety of data, but presently lack a firm grounding in established physics. We don’t know what exactly the dark matter is, what the dark energy is, or how inflation happened, if indeed it happened at all. So it behooves us to push at the boundaries a bit — start with the simple models and tweak them in some way, and then check whether the new version still fits the data. How confident are we that the dark sector has the properties we think it does, or that inflation happened in a straightforward way?

This was the philosophy that led Lotty Ackerman, Mark Wise and I to ask what the universe would look like if rotational invariance were violated during inflation — if there were a preferred direction in space, which left some imprint on the cosmological perturbations that currently show up as large-scale structure and temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. I talked about how that paper came to be in a series of posts: one, two, three. And now there is even tantalizing evidence that our model fits the data! I don’t get too excited about it, but it’s something to keep an eye on as the data improve (e.g. when the Planck satellite gets results).

Ever since then, Mark and I have toyed with the idea that once you’ve broken rotational invariance, your next step is obvious: violate translational invariance! Instead of imagining a preferred direction in space, imagine there were a preferred place in the universe. Not because you have some good reason to think there is, but because you want to quantify the level of confidence we have in the assumption that there is not.

So we have now teamed up with Chien-Yao Tseng, another grad student here at Caltech, to do exactly that. The result is this paper:

Translational Invariance and the Anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background
Sean M. Carroll, Chien-Yao Tseng and Mark B. Wise

Primordial quantum fluctuations produced by inflation are conventionally assumed to be statistically homogeneous, a consequence of translational invariance. In this paper we quantify the potentially observable effects of a small violation of translational invariance during inflation, as characterized by the presence of a preferred point, line, or plane. We explore the imprint such a violation would leave on the cosmic microwave background anisotropy, and provide explicit formulas for the expected amplitudes $langle a_{lm}a_{l’m’}^*rangle$ of the spherical-harmonic coefficients.

It took a while to put into equations what exactly was meant by “violating translational invariance” in an operational way. But once you figure it out, it’s obvious, and there are three ways to do it: imagining that there is a preferred point, line, or plane in the universe. Then you hypothesize that the density fluctuations are very slightly modulated in a way that depends on your distance from that preferred place. Once you have that, it’s just a matter of cranking out some monstrous equations. Thank goodness there are only three macroscopic dimensions of space, is all I can say.

So now we have some predictions to compare with data, so that we can understand exactly how well the cosmic microwave background really assures us that there is no special place in the universe. But aside from the general motivation of being careful to test all of our cherished assumptions, there is another reason for work like this: there are a handful of ways in which cosmological perturbations don’t look completely the same in every direction. As we say in the paper:

There is another important motivation for studying deviations from pure statistical isotropy of cosmological perturbations: a number of analyses have found evidence that such deviations might exist in the real world. These include the “axis of evil” alignment of low multipoles, the existence of an anomalous cold spot in the CMB, an anomalous dipole power asymmetry, a claimed “dark flow” of galaxy clusters measured by the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, as well as a possible detection of a quadrupole power asymmetry of the type predicted by ACW in the WMAP five-year data. In none of these cases is it beyond a reasonable doubt that the effect is more than a statistical fluctuation, or an unknown systematic effect; nevertheless, the combination of all of them is suggestive. It is possible that statistical isotropy/homogeneity is violated at very high significance in some specific fashion that does not correspond precisely to any of the particular observational effects that have been searched for, but that would stand out dramatically in a better-targeted analysis.

In other words, we have a handful of anomalies, each of which might easily go away, but perhaps when they are taken together they imply that something is going on. Maybe there is some incredibly strong signal out there, and we just haven’t been looking for it in the right way. We won’t know until we understand better how such anomalies would show up in the observations — and then go collect better data.

A Special Place in the Universe Read More »

18 Comments

USA! USA!

What a day. History being made.

After voting, I celebrated with a bacon-wrapped hot dog from a local street vendor. Mustard and onions. America, baby.

Let’s take this country for a spin and see what it can do!

USA! USA! Read More »

33 Comments

Fired Up, Ready to Go

Every four years we have the Olympic Games, and we have a U.S. Presidential Election. And I think we can all agree on one thing: they both make for great TV. So after those of you in the U.S. have gone out and voted, then fidgeted through the rest of the working day, we can settle down to watch what happens.

Here is a finding chart (made using the tool at RealClearPolitics) to help keep track of the important action.

Let me stress that this is not a prediction; it’s a guide for interpreting the results as they come in. Blue states are ones that Obama will almost certainly win, red states are ones that McCain almost certainly needs to win if he is to have a shot. If, as is perfectly plausible, Obama wins North Carolina or even Georgia, the rout is on, and we can settle down to the glorious task of nationalizing the means of production, collectivizing the farms, and redistributing the wealth.

But let’s imagine that we find McCain winning all of these red states. Note that the blue states add up to 243 electoral votes, while 270 are needed to secure victory, meaning that Obama needs to score 27 or more electoral votes from the gray states. Three plausible ways that could play out:

  1. Florida. That’s 27 electoral votes right there, and the election would be over. However, voting in Florida rarely seems to go smoothly, and the race there is very tight.
  2. Two states from Pennsylvania/Virginia/Ohio. Obama is way ahead in Pennsylvania and Virginia, so this is the most likely way for things to unfold tonight. If he wins any two of these three states, it’s over.
  3. One state from Pennsylvania/Virginia/Ohio , and one or more smaller states to the West. This is the only real nail-biter scenario; note that it presumes that McCain wins Florida and all the red states. Overall not probable, but possible.

There are other possibilities — Obama loses all of PA/VA/OH/FL, but wins Indiana + Missouri + Colorado? — but those are not the way to bet. If PA/VA/OH/FL all go for McCain, gloom and doom will be the order of the day. (It’s worth emphasizing: not bloody likely.)

Poll closing times are listed here, so you can plan the evening’s festivities. Figure most results will be announced within an hour of poll closing. Florida is mixed, closing in some places at 7:00 Eastern time and in others at 8:00 Eastern, but nobody will be surprised if there are delays. So the most relevant times are Virginia (7:00 Eastern), Ohio (7:30 Eastern), and Pennsylvania (8:00 Eastern). The thing could be over early for us Left Coasters.

Recommended reading while the hour approaches: canvassing for Obama, vs. rallying for McCain. Recommended viewing: Girls 4 Obama at Shakesville.

Fired Up, Ready to Go Read More »

19 Comments

Guest Post: George Djorgovski, A New World Overture

In the post about my upcoming talk in Second Life, I gave a newbie’s sketchy perspective of the outlook for the medium. But you should also hear the pitch of someone who is a real expert, both in virtual worlds and their use for scientific research. So we’re very happy to have a guest post from George Djorgovski — Professor of Astronomy at Caltech, observer of galaxies, Co-Director of the Center for Advanced Computing Research, and Director of the Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics. He also goes by the name of Curious George, on the other side of the reality/virtuality divide. (Note: pretty pictures beneath the fold.)

——————————————-

As an avid reader of CV, I was pleased and honored when Sean invited me to contribute a guest post. Now, CV is a very forward-looking enterprise, and its Blogmaster has already fallen into the wormhole described below, so here is a little (way?) out of the box riff for your enjoyment…

* * *

It is not every day that you encounter a technology which may change the world. Especially if that technology is creating new worlds, albeit not in the chaotic inflation sense… (and unlike certain a priori untestable physical theories, these worlds are very much real, even if they are virtual — but let’s not go there now).

The development I would like to tell you about is immersive virtual reality (VR), or virtual worlds (VWs). It has originated largely from the on-line computer/video games, and that is still its main domain, but not for much longer. This technology has already gone well beyond the games, and I think it will go very, very far. It is in an embryonic stage now, sort of like the Web was circa 1993 (remember those ancient days, when you first heard about it? your first glimpse of the Mosaic browser?), or the Internet circa mid-1970’s (ask your grampa). Its prophets were science fiction writers of the highest rank: Stanislaw Lem, Vernor Vinge, Rudy Rucker, and pretty much the entire Cyberpunk movement and its offspring — William Gibson, Bruce Stering, Neall Stephenson, Charles Stross, to name but a few favorites. Credit is also due to the visionary computer scientist (and Unabomber victim) David Gelertner, whose book “Mirror Worlds” seeded some ideas in 1991 (before the WWW!). But this is no longer fiction, folks, and a growing number of us is trying hard to make it science. This is Serious Stuff. I think that this technology will be as transformative as the Web itself, and that the two will merge, soon, and change forever how we do, well, everything — science included.

Now, gentle reader, you may be a tad skeptical at this point; that is a perfectly normal and excusable reaction! (I know that, because that was how I reacted at first … ;). But if you indulge me for a moment and follow me down the rabbit hole, I promise that things will get curiouser and curiouser.

For a few years I have been reading about a rapid growth of the massive multi-user on-line role-playing games (MMORPGs), such as The World of Warcraft (WoW). I never played any, or had a slightest interest (in fact, I’ll date myself by admitting that the last computer game I played was the Space Invaders, back in the grad school, as a pure procrastination device). There are about 6 million WoW players word-wide. But gaming is not what this is all about, even though in May of 2008, there was a first scientific conference held in WoW.

A more interesting development is the rise of VWs which are general, interactive virtual environments. They can be used for gaming or role playing, but also for more serious things. There are currently well over 300 VWs on-line, some of them very special-purpose, some purely as games, but many with broad and open goals, according to the Association of Virtual Worlds. By far the dominant VW is Second Life (SL), developed by Linden Lab (LL), a company founded in 1999 by Philip Rosedale, and backed by such Internet business luminaries as Jeff Bezos, Mitch Kapor, and Pierre Omidyar — and these folks probably know what they are doing.

Predictably, media accounts of SL tend to focus on cybersex and silly looking avatars, and so my own superficial initial reaction was “what a b.s., video games for adults”. I got intrigued after reading Wade Roush’s article “Second Earth” in the July/August 2007 issue of MIT’s Technology Review. However, my personal conversion was really prompted by an old friend, Piet Hut, a Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Piet is a numerical stellar dynamics guru, and a person with a very creative and eclectic mind. So after he posted a couple of preprints describing his initial exploration of VWs on the arXiv server (astro-ph/0610222 and 0712.1655) I got really intrigued, and started a conversation. I was skeptical at first, but then in March of 2008 I jumped in, and it has been a fun and intriguing journey ever since.

Judging by my own experience, there is no way that you can really understand all this just by reading or listening; you have to try it. It is a fundamentally visceral, as well as an intellectual experience. It is as if you have never seen a bicycle, let alone ridden one, and someone was showing you pictures of people having a good time biking around, and telling you what a fun it is. Please keep that in mind. You gotta try it, then judge for yourself.

Let me give you a few factoids about SL first. There are over 15 million registered users worldwide, and typically about 60,000 are on-line at any given time. Nearly 300 universities have some presence in SL (typically a virtual campus), including the likes of MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc. Numerous outreach organizations and museums (e.g., the Exploratorium), media programs (e.g., the NPR Science Friday), many scientific publishers (e.g., Nature) have active outposts. Hundreds of major brand companies, ranging from the usual tech giants (Cisco, Dell, IBM, HP, Microsoft, Sony, Xerox, etc.) to Ben & Jerry’s, Coca-Cola, Warner Brothers, etc., also have presence there. New business models are being developed, and companies whose business is only immersive VR are popping up. Many government agencies, both from the US (e.g., NASA, NOAA, CDCP, etc.) and from other countries, are active in SL, for outreach purposes, situational training, etc. Federal Consortium for Virtual Worlds held a large conference in April 2008. Reuters has a news bureau in SL. Three countries (Sweden, Estonia, and Maldives) have embassies in SL. And so on.

There is a thriving economics in SL, which has its own currency (Linden dollars, L$) with fluctuating exchange rates, about L$ 250 – 260 for US$ 1. There is about US$ 25M in capital in SL, and the quarterly user transactions are around US$ 80M. For these reasons, the Congress held a mixed-reality (natch!) hearing, both in real life (RL) and SL, in April 2008 (see, e.g., this news report). You can find links to many other relevant news stories at LL’s own website. There are many SL blogs, which the readers of CV can surely hunt down on their own.

How does it work? In a nutshell, you can sign up for SL for free (a paid membership allows you to own virtual land, and has a few other privileges). Explore the SL website links. You download an SL browser from there. The way this works is that LL runs a grid of servers, which contain a vast database of who and what is where and how are they moving, communicating, etc. It sends the local data to your browser, which does the graphical rendering; you need a fairly new machine for this to run well, probably not more than 3 years old. SL is a “flat earth” world, and endless ocean with islands and continents. The basic unit of virtual land is a “sim” or an “island” (even if it is completely land-enclosed), and it is 256 meters square; it is mapped to a single compute note in the LL grid. Every user is represented by a human-like avatar; you get a pretty rudimentary one upon signing in, but you can acquire better designed ones for free or for money. (One annoying feature of SL is that you have a restricted freedom in choosing your avatar’s name; my nom de pixel is Curious George, and I lucked out on that one.) You can communicate with other users by voice or text; either one can be public, heard within a radius of about 20 – 30 meters, or private. You can move around by walking, flying (very cool) or teleporting (even cooler). And then … it’s all up to you, your curiosity and imagination. Users generate essentially all of the content – buildings, arts, gizmos and gadgets. There is a scripting language and a graphical editor. Or you can just buy stuff from creative and enterprising people who are good at making things in SL. You can also get a lot of free stuff, some of which is of a surprisingly high quality. SL is all about people interacting and creating content, very much a Web 2.0 in that way, even though it presages the Web 3.0, or 4.0 or …

What really surprised me — knocked my virtual socks off, so to speak — is the subjective quality of the interpersonal interaction. Even with the still relatively primitive graphics, the same old flat screen and keyboard, and a limited avatar functionality, it is almost as viscerally convincing as a real life interaction and conversation. Somehow, our minds and perceptive systems interpolate over all of the imperfections, and it really clicks. I cannot explain it — it has to be experienced; it is not a rational, but a subjective phenomenon. It is much better than any video- or teleconferencing system I have tried, and like most of you, I have suffered through many of those. As a communication device, this is already a killer app. Going back to the good old email and Web feels flat and lame.

So what has all this got to do with science and scholarship?

Guest Post: George Djorgovski, A New World Overture Read More »

20 Comments

Talk in Second Life

Ten or fifteen years from now, virtual worlds will be as prevalent as web pages are today. I remember fifteen years ago when I had just set up my first web page and was trying to explain to my friends that this was going to be really big. Suffice it to say, I wasn’t very convincing. “The other day I found a web page that you can use to order a pizza to be delivered!” “You know, we already have a technology to do that — it’s called a phone.”

Likewise, I don’t have an especially clear picture of how virtual worlds will be put to use in the years to come. Right now, by far the leading presence in the game is Second Life, which remains clearly marked by the signs of geekdom which tend to characterize early incarnations of technological advances — for example, you have to choose a pseudonym for your avatar, the surname of which must come from a list of more-or-less goofy selections. And, admittedly, the most popular activities seem to be roleplaying and cybersex. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

But the scientific community is catching on. Rob Knop, erstwhile astronomer and science blogger, now works for Linden Labs, creators of Second Life. Organizations like the Exploratorium have set up bases in SL, and one ambitious fan of the Large Hadron Collider built a mock-up of the ATLAS detector. At the research level, astronomers have set up the Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics, which uses SL and other virtual worlds for a number of different activities — collaboration meetings, data visualization, outreach, etc. Piet Hut of the Institute for Advanced Study, who founded the group, has posted a few papers on the arxiv about how he envisions the possibilities, e.g.:

Virtual Laboratories and Virtual Worlds
Piet Hut (IAS, Princeton)

All of which is preamble to mentioning that Rob has invited me to give a popular talk in Second Life, which (I think) will be happening next Saturday, November 8, at 10 a.m. Pacific time. So if you regret not being able to come to my arrow of time talk in so-called “real life,” here is your chance to hear it. It’ll be taking place at the Galaxy Dome at Spaceport Bravo — that’s a Second Life URL, or SLURL; if you have already signed up, just click that link to appear at that location in-world (as they say). It looks something like this:

Chances are that you don’t have your own Second Life identity, but here’s your excuse to join up and spend a couple of hours this weekend building your avatar and buying clothes. There’s no need to spend any money at all if you don’t want to, but if you do, there is a real economy with its own currency and a variable exchange rate with US dollars. (Just like real life, fashion choices for women vastly outnumber those for men. Unlike real life, you get to buy your skin and hair, or even your shape — or just modify the default stuff you are created with.) Here’s a useful startup guide, if you don’t mind receiving instructions from a mermaid.

Look forward to seeing you Saturday. Or rather, Seamus Tomorrow does.

Talk in Second Life Read More »

18 Comments
Scroll to Top