Cosmo-media

cosmo-media@cosmo.torun.pl

36 discussions

New Scientist journalist's question(s)
by Boud Roukema 04 Jan '08

04 Jan '08

hi cosmo-media, A science journalist wants an interview, most probably about http://arXiv.org/abs/0801.0006, so that s/he can choose one sentence to publish from a telephone conversation of probably 10-20 minutes or more.... The journalist refuses to use electronic communication, even jabber! S/he will probably telephone tomorrow Friday 4 Jan 2008 at 15:00. S/he also wants our comments on Niarchou & Jaffe (NJ07): http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702436v2 http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19225811.300-fold-testament-what-sh… My initial thoughts are: # practical: to get the references to 0702436, download the source and paste the .bbl file into the .tex file, then latex && latex && dvips * the NJ07 method is less physically direct than ours, since it focuses on spherical harmonics on the 2-sphere rather working directly in comoving 3-space; * NJ07 is a perturbation simulation approach: the limitations of this approach are described in Section 1.2.1 of Roukema (2000) MNRAS, 312, 712, arXiv:astro-ph/9910272; * specifically, they assume that even on the largest scales, the function P(k) is a power law k^n function and that the phases of the perturbations are Gaussian distributed, which at the largest scales in a multiply connected universe is an assumption with neither observational nor theoretical support - it might be right, it might be wrong; * the closest papers to their method are probably Caillerie et al. 2007 arXiv:0705.0217 which works directly with the eigenmodes of the PDS, up to k = 230, where k = l \frac{R_C}{c/H_0}, and and Aurich 2005b arXiv:astro-ph/0412569; NJ07 use up to "beta" = 41 which seems to more or less correspond to k, i.e. they have 5 times less resolution than Caillerie et al.; Caillerie et al's conclusion is that the PDS fits WMAP better than the infinite flat model; Aurich et al. say that it's not yet possible to make "firm" conclusions. * apart from the normalisation of their probabilities, their Fig. 5 looks like it agrees with Aurich et al. and Caillerie et al for Omega_{tot} \sim 1.015-1.018 However, the journalist probably wants "sound bites" for the "human interest factor" rather than "just science". My suggestions for sound bites if it's about NJ07: * "NJ07 have done some interesting work, but their method requires making some assumptions about theoretical models which have no physical motivation to be correct on the largest scales of a PDS universe. We avoid making this type of assumption and use the observations directly." * "The apparent space associated with the PDS is the three-dimensional space called the hypersphere or 3-sphere. So we work in the hypersphere, embedded in Euclidean 4-space, which makes it relatively easy to work with. NJ07 work primarily on the 2-sphere instead of on the 3-sphere. This could cause some problems." * "We agree with their final phrase 'the issue of the topology of the Universe is far from settled'." As for sound bites about our own work.... i don't have any good ideas so far. pozdr boud

1 0

testing...
by Boud Roukema 03 Jan '08

03 Jan '08

1 0

Re: [Cosmo-torun] smoot/mather nobel
by Andrzej Marecki 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 02:27:06PM +0200, Boud Roukema wrote: > i don't want to spam everyone, so please just update the twiki: > http://cosmo.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/MediaNobelSmootMather I polished (Polished?) the Polish and I think it's OK now. -- Andrzej

1 0

tv crew will be at KRA from around 15:30 for smoot/mather nobel stuff
by Boud Roukema 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

1 0

Nowości (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

hi cosmo-media, A local journalist (from Nowości) wants a comment from me (and my photo) for a Nowości article about the Smoot/Mather Nobel prize - like a typical journalist, he wants it in the next few hours - after all, the newspaper wants "hot" news. What do people think we should answer? Should i give a photo? A photo of Smoot & Mather would be better, though it would have to be OK for Nowości's copyright situation. Hmmm - anything from NASA is public domain, so that should be OK. So far i can't find a public domain photo... Here are my suggested answers so far. Any comments? i told the journalist i should be around until 17.00g today. i've put it on the twiki in case anyone wants to edit directly: http://cosmo.torun.pl/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Cosmo/MediaNobelSmootMather pozdr boud > Chciałbym prosić o krótki (kilka zdań) komentarz w sprawie przyznanej > właśnie nagrody Nobla z dziedziny fizyki dla Johna C. Mathera i Georga F. > Smoot;'a za badania ciał doskonale czarnych we Wszechświecie oraz > mikrofalowego promieniowania tła. > Interesuje mnie zwłaszcza odpowiedź na > pytanie, dlaczego ta dziedzina wiedzy jest tak istotna i na czym polega > niezwykłość odkrycia Amerykanów? > I jeszcze jedna prośba - jeżeli można > chciałbym poprosić o wyjaśnienie tego w miarę przystępny sposób, tak aby > przeciętny czytelnik naszej gazety nie poczuł się zdezorientowany :) John C. Mather, George Smoot i David Wilkinson (umarł 2002r.) wspólnie wprowadzili jeden z najważniejszych eksperymentów w historii nowoczesnym kosmologii obserwacyjnym przez satelit COBE: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/ Przed obserwacji mapy nieba COBE (w falach elektromagnetycznych od 3mm do 1cm), tylko wiedziliśmy, że Wszechświat na wielki skalach jest bardzo jednorodny, ale kosmologów spodziewały aby nie ma perfekcyjna jednorodność, aby niektórych miejsca są trochę gęstsze i innych mniej gęstsze. Jest to trochę jak góry i doliny na ląd ziemski. Powierzchnia Ziemii nie jest perfekcyjnie płaska - nie tylko na wielką skalę, powierzchnia Ziemii jest okrągły, ale na małym skalę, mamy guzy i nachylenia, tzw góry i doliny. Mapa COBE była pierwszy raz, że widzieliśmy tych góry i doliny na skalach kosmologicznych, tzn miliardy lat-świetlnych. Widmo promieniowanie obserwowane przez COBE też było najperfekcyjny ,,ciało doskonale czarny" lepszy niż co możemy tworzyć w laboratoriach ziemskich. Temperatura tego ,,ciało doskonale czarnego" i statystyki tych ,,góry i doliny" byli spektakularny potwierdzenie teoretycznych przewidywania kosmologów, potwierdzają elementarnych podstawy naszego model Wszechświata, znany popularnie jako ,,model Wielkiego Wybuchu". Smoot i Mather całkowicie zasłużą ich Nagrody Nobela. Niestety, Wilkinson umarł w 2002r., ale następnego satelit podobny do COBE ma jego nazwa - WMAP - Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Przeczytaj więcej: (po polsku o kosmologii) http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmologia_obserwacyjna (po angielski o satelit COBE) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

1 0

Hey Darla Check Out This Watch
by Maribel 23 Aug '06

23 Aug '06

I just got my wife a Bvlgari watch and she really loves it. I can't afford to spend $30 000 on a watch for her, though I would love to; but this did the trick. It looks exactly like the real thing and she's actually glad I didn't spend $30 000 on a watch but saved $29 750 instead. This turned out perfect guys, thanks for providing such a great product, with such great prices. This was a great experience ordering from your company. - May Visit http://www.ugwobxc.com

1 0

T. Rozek: Wszechswiat bez ciemnej energii
by Andrzej Marecki 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Boud, FYI, Tomasz Rożek works not only for Axel Springer. Today (23.02), Gazeta Wyborcza (owned by Agora, a public company) published his popular article on (the lack of) dark energy: http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/nauka/1,34148,3178280.html As we can see Dr. Rożek *can* write pop-science articles which are *not* interviews with scientists. So if he can write on DE using publicly available material (astro-ph/0510453) then why not doing the same w.r.t. the shape of the Universe? -- Andrzej

1 0

Re: the shape of the universe
by t.rozek＠fz-juelich.de 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

Dear Sir, thank you for the response. I know answers for questions I've send to you. My point is to get your answers. Short, competent and for the "grass root". Therefore I would like to ask you to consider one more time the request included in my previous letter. With the best wishes Tomek Rozek ----- Original Message ----- From: Boud Roukema <boud(a)astro.uni.torun.pl> Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:47 pm Subject: Re: the shape of the universe > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 t.rozek(a)fz-juelich.de wrote: > > > Dear Sir, > > > > I'm a physicist and scientific writer. Within the new project of > Axel Springer publishing house (editor of Newsweek in Poland and > Die Welt in Germany) in Poland I would like to invite you to the > discussion about the shape of the universe. > > > > As I know scientific group you are the leader, in 2004 went > public with the information that in the microwave background > radiation picture there are some indications, that our universe > has a shape of dodecahedron. > > > > Questions I'm asking you are the same like these I have sent to > other expert in this field. I will not hide, that his opinion > about the shape of the universe is different than your. > > > > I will be pleased to get from you compact answers to questions > which are listed below. Please keep in mind that new Axel Springer > daily will be addressed to nonspecialists in physics or astronomy. > > > > Let me thank you in advance for time you will spend to answer my > questions. I'm looking forward to your respond. > > > > With the best regards > > Tomasz Rozek > > > Dear Tomasz > > Answers to your questions are publicly available in research > papers and > in pedagogical (encyclopedia level) material as below. > > boud > > > > > 1. Analysis of the microwave background radiation are the only way > > - I guess - to collect information about the shape of the > > universe. Isn't it risky to draw conclusions resulting from only one > > experiment ? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Evaluations_and_iterations > > > 2. Why this is commonly believed, that data from WMAP probe, brought > > down the concept of flat and infinite universe ? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model > > > 3. There are many ideas concerning the shape of the universe. Maybe > > it is like a sphere, cylinder, funnel, but it can also be like bell, > > horn or dodecahedron. Why do you claim that space is > > dodecahedron-like ? > > http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksztalt_Wszechswiata > > > 4. What are the errors or defects of the idea of horn-like space ? > > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403597 > > > 5. Could you in the very easy way explain the expression, that space > > has a shape ? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe > > > 6. Do efforts to establish a shape of the universe have any > > practical meaning or you are doing that just to know ? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_science > > > 7. Did universe have a beginning, and ones will have the end ? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe > >

2 1

Re: the shape of the universe
by Boud Roukema 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 t.rozek(a)fz-juelich.de wrote: > Dear Sir, > > I'm a physicist and scientific writer. Within the new project of Axel Springer publishing house (editor of Newsweek in Poland and Die Welt in Germany) in Poland I would like to invite you to the discussion about the shape of the universe. > > As I know scientific group you are the leader, in 2004 went public with the information that in the microwave background radiation picture there are some indications, that our universe has a shape of dodecahedron. > > Questions I'm asking you are the same like these I have sent to other expert in this field. I will not hide, that his opinion about the shape of the universe is different than your. > > I will be pleased to get from you compact answers to questions which are listed below. Please keep in mind that new Axel Springer daily will be addressed to nonspecialists in physics or astronomy. > > Let me thank you in advance for time you will spend to answer my questions. I'm looking forward to your respond. > > With the best regards > Tomasz Rozek Dear Tomasz Answers to your questions are publicly available in research papers and in pedagogical (encyclopedia level) material as below. boud > 1. Analysis of the microwave background radiation are the only way > - I guess - to collect information about the shape of the > universe. Isn't it risky to draw conclusions resulting from only one > experiment ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Evaluations_and_iterations > 2. Why this is commonly believed, that data from WMAP probe, brought > down the concept of flat and infinite universe ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model > 3. There are many ideas concerning the shape of the universe. Maybe > it is like a sphere, cylinder, funnel, but it can also be like bell, > horn or dodecahedron. Why do you claim that space is > dodecahedron-like ? http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksztalt_Wszechswiata > 4. What are the errors or defects of the idea of horn-like space ? http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403597 > 5. Could you in the very easy way explain the expression, that space > has a shape ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe > 6. Do efforts to establish a shape of the universe have any > practical meaning or you are doing that just to know ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_science > 7. Did universe have a beginning, and ones will have the end ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

1 0

PROPOSAL for a reply
by Boud Roukema 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

hi everyone, i've tried to come up with a proposal compatible with the summary here: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2006-February/000353.html and Andrzej's suggestion here: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2006-February/000354.html The proposed text is between ######### - i'm not sure if Bartek or Andrzej want to sign, or even if this is compatible with Andrzej's arguments, though i think it should be, because all the material is protected (well, open) under GFDL copyright, but it's not especially linked to any of our names - there are typically anywhere between 5 and 100 authors on the wikipedia page articles. The LambdaCDM article presently says nothing about "bringing down the concept of flat and infinite universe" - which IMHO is rather premature anyway - IMHO that wikipedia page would be a good place to discuss that - in the wikipedia context - *if* anyone really wants to have a "public, pedagogical" debate. The response to 4. also gives a response to Bartek's worry about the earlier Levin paper (lacking high resolution). What do people think of this proposed response (v0.2)? pozdr boud PROPOSAL version 0.2 ###################################################################### Dear Tomasz, Answers to your questions are publicly available in research papers and in pedagogical (encyclopedia level) material as below. Boud Roukema, Bartosz Lew > 1. Analysis of the microwave background radiation are the only way > - I guess - to collect information about the shape of the > universe. Isn't it risky to draw conclusions resulting from only one > experiment ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Evaluations_and_iterations > 2. Why this is commonly believed, that data from WMAP probe, brought > down the concept of flat and infinite universe ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model > 3. There are many ideas concerning the shape of the universe. Maybe > it is like a sphere, cylinder, funnel, but it can also be like bell, > horn or dodecahedron. Why do you claim that space is > dodecahedron-like ? http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksztalt_Wszechswiata > 4. What are the errors or defects of the idea of horn-like space ? http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403597 > 5. Could you in the very easy way explain the expression, that space > has a shape ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe > 6. Do efforts to establish a shape of the universe have any > practical meaning or you are doing that just to know ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_science > 7. Did universe have a beginning, and ones will have the end ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe ######################################################################

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Cosmo-media