The gift of blog

Count me among the staunchly pro-Christmas atheists. I may not be religious, but I’m all about the loot. If the price of getting presents is the ostentatious display of a few borrowed pagan images around Winter Solstice time, I can deal.

inkycircus So our gift from Cosmic Variance to you is — new blogs! New to us, anyway. First up is inkycircus, a very fun site from three British journalists who are in the process of starting their own science magazine (found at Element list). The twist is that Anne, Katie and Anna are all women, and seem to be having a great time with the whole operation. (Men would feel the pressure to be all ponderous and serious-sounding, if I may venture an unsupported generalization.) My favorite category of post is men whose babies we want to bear, even if it is somewhat unrepresentative of the larger project and despite the fact that Jon Stewart makes the list and I don’t.

light pollution map The other new site worth checking out is systemic by Greg Laughlin, discussing the search for extrasolar planets. (“systemic” is the name of a Java applet for analyzing data collected in the search for such planets.) In addition to cool science, it’s full of great images like the one at left. Unfortunately this is a map of light pollution in the vicinity of Lick Observatory (see the Bay Area coastline outlined in white?), but it’s still a great image.

Finally, I note that Cosmic Variance is currently ranked 374th in the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem traffic rankings, one slot above HorsesAss.Org. Draw your own conclusions.

Happy holidays, everyone.

The gift of blog Read More »

14 Comments

Raoul Bott, 1923-2005

Sad to hear that Raoul Bott passed away this week (via Peter Woit; see also Jaques and Luboš). Bott was one of the leading mathematicians of his time, but he was also an inspirational teacher and a warm human being. When we were grad students at Harvard, Ted Pyne and I would try to attend whatever class he was giving, even though they were invariably at 8:30 in the morning, a time that was probably chosen intentionally since they were always so popular. He had a joyful sense of humor, and was kind enough to help me out with some geometry questions relevant to a paper I was writing. A truly great man.

Update: Perhaps one story will give a flavor for Bott’s personality. In class one morning he was in the midst of explaining the Atiyah-Singer index theorem (one of the most important results in modern topology), when he paused and looked reflective. Then he said something like, “The first I heard of this kind of thing was at a party at Princeton. Just talking with one of those physicists, it may have been Wigner. He was explaining this idea, saying that something like this ought to be true. Unfortunately, I had had a few drinks, and I didn’t follow him so well. But Atiyah was standing next to me, and he was perfectly sober!” And he laughed at his own story with a sense of open delight.

Raoul Bott, 1923-2005 Read More »

5 Comments

Aftermath

PZ has a great article about what remains to be done amidst the morning-after hangover of the Dover decision. (I’ll even forgive him for calling us nerds; backstory at Majikthise.) Upshot: scientists need to be outspoken, convincing, and relentless in simultaneously persuading and educating the public. We can’t take our own success for granted; there are anti-scientific forces out there who are highly paid and highly skilled, and a large segment of the public who want to know the truth but are receiving mixed signals.

But, if you just want to have a laugh, you could do worse than checking up on Michael Behe’s predictions.

Aftermath Read More »

18 Comments

Retouch

Retouching Via Marginal Revolution, a link to the Girl Power campaign of the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Click here and wait for it to load; it’s a Flash demonstration of how you turn a photo of an (already attractive) young woman into magazine-cover material.

The campaign is supposed to draw attention and criticism to the overly sexualized nature of advertising and the media more generally. It suffers a bit from the self-undermining impulse of many such campaigns, by itself relying on overly sexual imagery to get attention. But it’s nice to help people distinguish media fantasy from reality.

Update: the site was also linked at Feministe, who point to a couple of other examples — Greg’s Digital Archive and Glenn Feron.

Retouch Read More »

22 Comments

A good day for science

The verdict in the Dover intelligent-design trial is in! To nobody’s surprise, it’s a rout.

HARRISBURG, Pa. – “Intelligent design” is “a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory” and cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he wrote in his 139-page opinion. “The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy,” Jones wrote, adding that several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs.

Judge Jones’s opinion is online (pdf); commentary from PZ and Ed Brayton. Overall, a huge, unambiguous win: not only were the creationists shot down, but their religious and anti-science agenda was made perfectly clear.

Not that the battles are over just yet. DarkSyde has an interview with Chris Mooney about his book The Republican War on Science. We have a long way to go, but it’s nice to win one decisively once in a while.

A good day for science Read More »

29 Comments

Unsolicited advice, 1: How to get into graduate school

Your humble bloggers here at Cosmic Variance have spent quite a bit of accumulated time in academic and research settings — in fact, my guess is that none of us have spent an entire year away from such a setting since the age of about six or so. That’s a lot of accumulated wisdom right there, and it’s about time we started sharing it. Since it’s that time of year when applications are being sent off to graduate schools, I thought I would start off by letting everyone in on the secret to how to get accepted everywhere you apply. Of course I can only speak for physics/astronomy departments, but the basic lessons should be widely applicable. [Update: see also Choosing a Graduate School and How to Be a Good Graduate Student.]

So, here goes: have great grades, perfect GRE scores, significant research experience, and off-scale letters of recommendation. Any questions?

If, perhaps, it’s a bit too late to put that plan into action, here are some personal answers to questions that come up during the process. Co-bloggers (and anyone else) are free to chime in with their own take on these complicated issues. Keep in mind that every person is different, as is every grad school — in fact, specific schools might behave quite differently from year to year as different people serve on the admissions committee. Don’t sink your sense of self-worth into how you do on these applications; there’s a strong random component in the decisions, and there are a very large number of good schools where you can have a fun and successful graduate career.

  • What do graduate school admissions committees look at?
    Everything. Keep in mind that, unlike being admitted to college (undergrad), at the grad school level the admissions are done by individual departments, with committees comprised of faculty members with different kinds of expertise, and often students as well. They’ll look at your whole application, and in my experience they really take the responsibility seriously, poring over a huge number of applications to make some hard decisions. Still, it’s well-known that careful examination of a thick file of papers is no substitute for five minutes of talking to someone, which schools usually don’t have the luxury of doing, so decisions are always somewhat fickle.
  • Even my personal essay?
    Well, okay. I wouldn’t sweat the personal essay; in my experience it doesn’t have too much impact. Let’s put it this way: an incredibly good essay could help you, but a bad essay won’t do too much harm (unless it’s really bad). To a good approximation, all these essays sound alike after a while; it’s quite difficult to be original and inspiring in that format.
  • Are GRE scores important?
    Yes. At least, in the following sense: while bad GRE’s won’t kill your chances, good GRE’s make it much easier to admit you. (We’re speaking of the Physics GRE, of course; the general tests are completely irrelevant.) It stands to reason: given two applicants from similar schools with similar grades and interests, there’s no reason for a department to choose the student with lower GRE scores. At the same time, you can certainly overcome sub-par GRE’s by being outstanding in other areas; this is particularly true for students who want to do experiment. I know at Chicago that we let in students with quite a range of scores.
  • What about research experience?
    Research can be a big help, although it’s by no means absolutely necessary. These days it seems that more and more undergrads are doing research, to the point where it begins to look unusual when people haven’t done any. There is some danger that people think you must want to keep on doing the kind of research that you did as an undergrad, although I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Mostly it shows some initiative and passion for the field. It can be very difficult to do theoretical research as an undergrad, but that’s okay; even if you eventually want to be a string theorist, it’s still great experience to do some experimental work as an undergrad (in fact, perhaps it’s especially useful).
  • How do I get good letters of recommendation?
    It’s more important to have letters from people who know you well than from people who are well-known themselves. One of the best side benefits of doing research is that you can get your supervisor (who hopefully has interacted with you quite a bit) to write letters for you. It’s really hard to write a good letter for a student who you only know because they took one class from you a year or two ago. Over the course of your undergrad career, you should find some way to strike up a personal relationship with one or more faculty members, if only to sit in their office now and then and ask some physics questions. Then they can write a much more personal and effective letter. Of course, if you are just a bad person who annoys everyone, it would be just as well to stay hidden. (Kidding!)
  • Is it true that the standards are different for theorists and experimenters?
    Typically, yes, although it might be different from place to place. Because a lot of undergrads haven’t been exposed to a wide range of physics research, a large number of them want to be Richard Feynman or Stephen Hawking or Ed Witten. Which is great, since we need more people like that. But even more, we need really good experimenters. Generally the ratio of applicants to available slots is appreciably larger for theorists than for experimenters, and schools do take this into account. Also, of course, the standards are a little different: GRE’s count more for prospective theorists, and research experience counts more for prospective experimenters. And let’s be honest: many schools will accept more prospective theorists than they can possible find advisors for, in the hopes of steering them into experiment once they arrive.
  • So should I claim to be interested in experiment, even if I’m not?
    No. Think about it: given that schools already tend to accept more students who want to do theory than they can take care of, what are your chances of getting a good advisor if you sneak into a department under false pretenses and have to compete with others who came in with better preparation? It makes much more sense to go someplace where they really want you for who you are, and work hard to flourish once you get there.
  • Do I need to know exactly what I will specialize in?
    Not really, although in certain circumstances it can help. Professors like to know that someone is interested in their own area of research, and might push a little harder to accept someone whose interest overlaps with their work; on the other hand, most people understand that you don’t know everything after three and a half years of being an undergraduate, and it can take time to choose a specialization. In particular, at most American physics departments (unlike other countries and some other disciplines), it is generally not expected that you need to know ahead of time who your advisor will be when you arrive, or which “group” you will work in.
  • Should I contact faculty members individually if I’m interested in their research?
    That depends, mostly on whether the person you are contemplating contacting is desperate for more grad students, or is overwhelmed with too many requests as it is. In popular areas (ahem, like theoretical particle physics, string theory, and cosmology), there are generally more applicants than departments have advisors for. In that case, most people who receive random emails from undergraduates will just urge them to wait for the admissions process to take its course; remember that it’s a zero-sum game, and for everyone who gets in there’s someone else who doesn’t, and it would be a little unfair to penalize those applicants who didn’t contact faculty members personally. On the other hand, if you have reason to believe that someone you’re interested in working with is trying to get more students, or if you think your case is somehow unique and requires a bit of attention, feel free to email the appropriate faculty member with a polite inquiry. The worst that can happen is that you get a brush-off; I can’t imagine it would actually hurt your chances.
  • Is my life over if I don’t get into my top grad school?
    Yes. Well, only if you let it be. The truth is, how you do in grad school and beyond (including how you do on the postdoc and faculty job market) depends much more on you than it does on where you go to school. In the next episode of “unsolicited advice,” we’ll think about how to actually choose where to go, including how to get the most out of visiting different schools.

Actually this episode was not completely unsolicited; thanks to Philip Tanedo for suggesting we share some of our invaluable insight. See, sometimes we really do listen.

Unsolicited advice, 1: How to get into graduate school Read More »

110 Comments

The universe is the poor man's particle accelerator

David SchrammOne thing I wanted to add to Mark’s post about the New Views conference. The conference as a whole was dedicated to the memory of David Schramm, whose 60th birthday would have been this year; he died while piloting his own airplane in 1997. Schramm was an enormously influential figure in contemporary cosmology, one of the prime movers in bringing together particle physics and astrophysics in the study of the early universe. In particular, he was a pioneer in the use of Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis as a way to understand both particle physics and cosmology.

Between a few seconds and a few minutes after the Big Bang, the universe was a nuclear reactor, converting nucleons (neutrons and protons) into nuclei of helium, lithium, and deuterium. At very high temperatures the nucleons can’t bind together without being knocked apart; at low temperatures they would like to be bound into their lowest-energy state, which would be iron nuclei. But the universe is rapidly expanding, so we get a competition: as the temperature declines and it’s possible to form nuclei, the density is also falling, making reactions less frequent. We end up with several light nuclei, but don’t have enough time to make anything heavier.

The relic abundances of these nuclei depend on everything about physics when the universe was one minute old: particle physics parameters that govern the reaction rates, the number of species that governs the energy density, and the laws of general relativity that govern the expansion of the universe. (For example, if the universe were expanding a little bit faster, the reactions would happen a little bit earlier, implying that fewer neutrons would have decayed, allowing for the production of more helium.) Miraculously, the observed abundances fit precisely onto the predictions that come from extrapolating what we know about physics here and now all the way back to a minute after the Big Bang. The helium abundance provided the first empirical evidence that there were only three families of matter particles, long before Earth-based particle accelerators verified the result. And BBN assures us that Einstein’s general relativity works without modification in the very early universe; in particular, we know that Newton’s constant of gravitation had the same value then as it does now to within about twenty percent.

Personally, I find the success of BBN to be one of the most impressive feats in all of modern science. Here we are, 7,000,000,000,000,000 minutes after the Big Bang, making quantitative statements about what was going on 1 minute after the Big Bang — and it’s a perfect fit. I’ll never cease to be amazed that we know exactly what the universe was doing when it was one minute old.

The universe is the poor man's particle accelerator Read More »

14 Comments

Bloggy B. Blog McBlog

It’s the time of the year when the liberal blogosphere takes a breather from waging the War on Christmas to pause and hand itself some awards. The Koufax awards, in particular — named after one of the greatest left-handed pitchers of all time. The reason for separate awards for the liberal blogosphere is simply that, a couple of years ago when blogs became popular enough to start giving awards to each other, the sphere as a whole had a decided rightward tilt, and conservative blogs would always win all the awards. Liberals have by now caught up, and the recent Weblog Awards witnessed lefty blogs dominating in all the interesting categories. But it’s still fun to pal around with our friends here in the attractive and friendly half of the blogosphere, so the Koufax awards are continuing to go strong.

The awards are run by the selfless folks at Wampum; anyone can submit nominations, just by visiting Wampum and looking for the most recent “Koufax nominations post.” Here are my own nominations. I am too shy and self-effacing to nominate CV for anything, although in principle we would fit into various categories: Best Blog, Best Expert, Best Group Blog, Best New Blog. (Nothing to stop anyone else from nominating us, I suppose.)

None of my entries for “Deserving wider recognition” have a snowball’s chance, with the possible exception of 3 Quarks; the others are just my idiosyncratic favorites. I largely agree with Ezra’s take on the whole affair; the winner is determined by who funnels in the most votes, not necessarily which blogs are actually the best. But it’s very fruitful to peruse the nominations, as you might uncover some hidden gems. The blogosphere is (happily) by now so large that there are just too many good blogs out there, and even those of us who read quite a few of them basically find some favorites and stick to them. I’m chagrined to see that I didn’t have any worthy nominations for the “Best New Blog” category. Feel free to make nominations in the comments.

Speaking of good blogging, you probably know that Daily Kos is the most popular blog on all the internets, with somewhere between 500,000 and a million hits per day. (We’re not at that level yet, but we’re young.) In addition to Kos himself, there are numerous diarists on the site, and every year a handful are chosen to be front-page posters. This year promises to see a significant uptick in the science content (!) of Daily Kos, as DarkSyde of Unscrewing the Inscrutable fame has been chosen as one of the front-pagers. He’s already instituted a “Science Friday” feature, and the first installment is a well-written tour through the powers of ten.

Finally, if you find all these blogs kind of overwhelming (and you don’t already use an RSS reader such as Bloglines), you can get a collection of physics blog content all in one place at Mixed States. I have mixed feelings about these things (although I use Bloglines myself) — on the one hand, it’s a vastly more efficient way to read multiple content sources; on the other, you lose the individual presentations of the sites themselves. It’s the wave of the future, though.

Bloggy B. Blog McBlog Read More »

14 Comments

Next step: political action committees

Congratulations to the people of Iraq, who held an historic vote yesterday. Regardless of the wisdom of our choice to invade the country, we can all be happy to see the first steps toward what hopefully becomes a functioning democracy, complete with campaign-finance laws and gerrymandering. I can’t imagine what it must feel like to go to a polling place and cast a meaningful ballot after a lifetime of dictatorship, but I imagine it must be a remarkable feeling.

Seems like the vote went fairly smoothly, at least by local standards, although there were some unfortunate incidents. Even the Aljazeera account was largely indistinguishable from those in the Western press, except for these short paragraphs near the end:

After casting his vote in the western city of Ramadi, 21-year-old Jamal Mahmoud said: “I’m delighted to be voting for the first time because this election will lead to the American occupation forces leaving Ramadi and Iraq,” echoing a belief common among voters across the war-torn country.

In the holy city of Najaf, stronghold of the ruling Shia Islamist Alliance’s list No. 555, 40-year-old Abdullah Abdulzahra said: “I’ll vote for 555 because they’ll kill all Baathists.”

I think that Ann Coulter might have a future in Iraqi punditry.

The best news is that the Sunnis turned out in large numbers, indicating a willingness to join the new government as full participants. How smoothly that will go remains to be seen; some prognostications at Crooked Timber by Kieran Healy and Daniel Davies. Regardless, an historic occasion, hopefully the first of many in the region.

Next step: political action committees Read More »

31 Comments
Scroll to Top