Mr. Astrophysics Head

The first cosmology results from the European Planck mission appeared this week. The results broadly confirm the results from NASA’s WMAP satellite, however, at higher angular resolution.(image:  (http://spaceinimages.esa.int/Images/2013/03/Planck_WMAP_comparison)   Consequently, the Planck results push our understanding of the early universe. The new ‘recipe’ for the universe reduces the percentage of dark energy from ~72 to ~68% and increases the percentage of dark matter to ~26.5%. The Hubble constant at the current epoch decreases from ~69 to ~67 km/sec/Mpc.

There is one interesting thing about the 29 papers that ESA uploaded to the arXiv server: about half the scientific results papers played up the consistency of the Planck results with the results of WMAP and other cosmology data sets; and about half the papers played up the differences with prior data. The press release points out the excellent confirmation of the ‘standard’ model of the universe immediately next to a figure illustrating the anomalies between Planck and WMAP data! Now that’s the way to straddle a fence!

Planck confirms the existence of the ‘cold spot’ as well as potentially uncovering a hemispheric asymmetry.(http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=51559).  I say ‘potentially’ because the statistical significance is marginal. The current Planck results are based on ~15 months of data. More data already exist, but are not yet processed — if the asymmetry is real, its significance will become stronger after the data are processed.

Consequently, the team should straddle the fence because the reality of the asymmetry is not so firmly established to be real, but the clues are sufficiently interesting to warrant attention.

The problem, of course, is the sensation of ‘new’ that everyone wants these days. The anomalies get played up even though the data do not yet fully support them — the anomalies are currently the equivalent of a point guard’s head feint to pull the defenders out of position. You’re watching all of this in slow motion, so the ball is still arcing toward the basket and you do not yet know whether the feint has a successful outcome.

The immediate answer may be ‘no’.  However, this site follows from yet-another-urging from the good people at the American Astronomical Society, raising the point that members of Congress (and their staffs) think scientists generally do not communicate with the public.  After a time, even the thickest of skulls gets the message.

The ‘plan’ is a post at an approximately once-per-week rate commenting on recent discoveries and thoughts on astrophysics in general or some topic in particular.

This week saw the emergence of Comet PanSTARRS (2011/L4) from behind the Sun.  I helped to coordinate a group, including the general public, to take a look on Tuesday evening (12 March), that being the likely best night to spot the comet.  The weather cooperated very nicely.  The chase was fun — we had to find the ~1-day-old moon, then look S of the Moon by a few degrees to spot the comet, and do so before both objects set (or, properly, the horizon rose to cover them!). There was a narrow window in which the comet was sufficiently far from the Sun to be visible yet sufficiently close to be bright.  And saw it we did!  The length of the tail was approximately 1/2-3/4 of the diameter of the Moon.  Not the brightest comet I’ve seen, but certainly one of the more challenging ones to spot.

Returning to the comment about Congress — I counter that we professional scientists do attempt to communicate (as the PanSTARRS effort shows), but that demands on our time increasingly leave little time for such effort.  Unfortunately, too many of those demands are ‘compliance issues’.  All of us understand that the use of public money requires accounting, but if the administrivia costs more than the dollar amount involved, that wastes scientists’ time.  Frustrating, annoying, pointless, …

— ems