Phil at the Bad Astronomer breathes a sigh of relief that an amendment by Barney Frank to prevent NASA from spending money on a manned mission to Mars has been defeated in the House. I haven’t been following this issue closely, so I’m not precisely sure what the amendment says, but from the looks of it I completely disagree with Phil. If I understand it correctly, the bill would not have cut NASA funding at all, just have prevented it from being used for the specific purpose of studying the possibility of sending astronauts to Mars. There is a huge difference between those two things.

Right now NASA is seriously underfunded, and there are three huge drains on the budget: the shuttle program, the Space Station, and the Moon/Mars initiative, all of which are mismanaged money pits. What is being hurt in all this is real science, which is being cut to the bone — essentially all of the Beyond Einstein missions (to study black holes, dark energy, and inflation) have been delayed, some essentially indefinitely. Studying Mars is interesting and fascinating. Spending money now on the idea of sending human astronauts to Mars is a politically-motivated boondoggle. There used to be a sensible procedure by which priorities were set, in which high-powered National Academy panels would look over the possibilities and use sensible scientific criteria to decide what was both interesting and feasible. The Bush administration has made a shambles of that process, and it has to stop.

Astrophysics in space, the one thing that NASA does well, is being killed off. The Moon/Mars initiative, according to people who know a lot more about the political wrangling than I do, is directly to blame. Sorry to hear that the amendment didn’t pass.

This will be old news to some people, but when I was back in England last week they were showing Guinness television ads that were short parts of an older ad that I had never seen, but about which my parents were raving. Fortunately, all things are available online, and this one is well worth seeing.

The ad combines two things I hold dear; a perfectly pulled pint of Guinness, and the theory of evolution. As described on the Guinness web site:

It starts with three friends enjoying a GUINNESS® beer in their local pub. We then follow them on an extraordinary backwards journey. The three guys travel back through time, as they walk they seamlessly go back down the evolutionary chain. They turn into Neanderthals, then apes, mammals, prehistoric fish, small dinosaurs and strange mole like creatures before ending up as mudskippers somewhere near the dawn of time. They take a sip from a muddy puddle and react in disgust.

Brilliant!

I have been known, now and again, to fret over the moral condition of our contemporary world. On such occasions, it warms my heart to think of the brave warriors of culture who are quick to defend precious institutions against the relativising onslaughts of modernity. Two recent cases in point:

• Sixty-six Senators (out of a hundred, for you public-high-school graduates like myself) voted to amend the Constitution to stop our Flag from being burned! Now, it’s true that sixty-seven (”more than two-thirds,” ibid.) would have been required to actually scoot the proposed amendment along its way, but still it’s comforting to know that such a robust majority wants to do the right thing. After all, flag burning is up 33% this year! The amendment was a straightforward prohibition against “the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” Desecration, of course, means “to violate the sacredness of,” and sacred means “dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity” or “worthy of religious veneration,” which is a status I didn’t even know belonged to Old Glory. Always learning something new, I guess.
• One Pope (that’s all there is) came out firmly against guitars in church! Because Jesus (or perhaps it is the Holy Spirit, I’m a little vague on the details) approves of chanting and organ music, but finds string instruments to be annoyingly twangy. This bold gesture fits in well with Benedict XVI’s shrewd plan to revitalize Christianity in affluent, secular cultures, where guitar music has traditionally met great resistance.

I’m not sure which of these stirring tales brings greater joy to my bitter, cynical soul. But it’s good to know that, now that we’ve successfully dealt with poverty, disease, and war, the important battles over appropriate behavior are being fought with clarity and vigor.

Just heard a rumor at dinner that the main camera on Hubble had a voltage overload a couple days ago and is now off-line. The backup camera system has now been activated. Anyone out there know more about this? Any confirmations or denials or more info?

Well, it seems that World Cup fever is everywhere - even with me a hardcore baseball adict. For the first time, I find myself checking the schedules and the progress. I haven’t graduated to watching the games yet, but I am still following it. Partly because I’m in Germany this week (yet another committee meeting). Today was my day off and I went to Cologne to photograph the cathedral. (It rained. All day. Persistently. All my photos show dreay dull grey skies with a rather dark pollution stained cathedral in the foreground. Ho hum…) But, first thing I noticed upon walking out of the train station is that Brasil was in town! Go Brasil!!! They must have been on their way from Dortmund to Frankfurt. They gotta win - they’ve got the most outrageous fans! (And my pixels didn’t even catch the people with the yellow green & blue hair!)

So a lot of visitors have been coming to CV to read Mark’s post on the Physics of Beckham. What’s more, the rest of the blogosphere is thick with commentary on the World Cup — 3 Quarks Daily has Alex Cooley reporting and Jonathan Kramnick grumbling, the Volokh Conspiracy has David Post enthusing and Todd Zywicki critiquing, and Crooked Timber has been hosting rollicking open threads. Who would have thought that people were interested in soccer? It’ll never be as popular as string theory, but there’s definitely some interest there.

Actually, philistine American though I may be, I love the World Cup. And I myself was doing Beckham blogging long before it had become fashionable. The World Cup is everything the Olympics should be, but isn’t. It’s a spectacle of true international importance, featuring a sport that people care about even in the off years, full of compelling personalities and a rich history, in which a country can’t dominate simply on the basis of a superior entertainment-industrial complex. And I have no desire to change the rules of the game to suit my uneducated predelictions. Even though basketball is my sport of choice, I have no problem with the paucity of scoring; just as I can appreciate the ebb and flow of the scoreboard and the drama of big runs and quick turnarounds in hoops, I can also savor the exquisite rarity of goals in soccer, with the attendant ebb and flow of anticipation as scoring chances are mounted and frustrated. I have no problem with the offside rule, nor would I want to see the goal size increased. Nor am I one of those postmodernists who would turn the whole thing into hockey. I don’t even have any problem with the idea that the world’s best team has a star named Kaka, or that the French think they can compete by fielding exactly the same players that won the Cup eight years ago.

That is to say, I am not a hater. So let’s nevertheless admit that there are a couple of things that everyone, from the most clueless newbie to the most knowledgeable expert, can admit are dramatically wrong with the game. And, perhaps, easily fixable.

The first is the refereeing. Not something Americans can feel culturally superior about, as the refereeing in the NBA or NFL is just horrible. But still, the quality in the Cup thus far has been atrocious, and not just because the USA was jobbed against both Italy and Ghana. (Against the Czechs they got what they deserved.) For one obvious thing, there is only one guy out there, expected to police every hidden elbow and maliciously-aimed foot? The notion is absurd on the face of it, and it’s hardly surprising that the difference between an innocent tackle and a game-altering penalty kick is basically a coin toss. (Has anyone before me noticed that the home-field advantage is really quite considerable in these games? They have? Okay, good.) And then you give to these subjective judgments an absolutely tournament-altering power — red cards not only send off a player, but keep him out for the next game, and force the team to play shorthanded for the rest of the match? The situation ensures that the amateur-thespian histrionics after a touch foul for which the Italians are infamous will always be amply rewarded. It’s not an admission of weakness to try to improve this mess somehow; surely nobody wants NFL-style reviews of the calls, but there must be ways (more referees, more latitude with the severity of sanctions) to make the games more fair.

But the real travesty, which I am absolutely convinced must be roundly despised by everyone in their right minds, is the shootout. I mean, come on. Some of the world’s best athletes run themselves ragged for over an hour and a half, with half the planet hanging breathlessly on the result, and it’s decided by a few free kicks from the penalty mark? That’s just insanity. The first World Cup final that I watched live (on TV) was Brazil-Italy in 1994, featuring a scoreless tie after regulation and extra time, the excitement of which was thoroughly destroyed by the shootout decision. This is embarassing, and has to stop. Especially because there is a completely obvious solution: let them keep playing! Sudden-death overtime. Some folks might worry that such an overtime period would just drag on forever. So, fine, let it! It won’t really go forever, because the players will get tired (and their number will be declining due to red cards!), and the ensuing sloppiness will make goals increasingly likely. And the excitement level would be amazing, adding to the drama of the world’s greatest sporting tournament rather than completely undermining it.

So come on, FIFA, do the right thing. Adjust a few knobs here and there on this World Cup thing, you may actually have something.

The Shaw Prize in astrophysics has been awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess, and Brian Schmidt, for discovering the acceleration of the universe by measuring the Hubble diagram using Type Ia supernovae. The Shaw Prize is relatively new, having first been given in 2004, and is awarded in three areas: Astronomy, Mathematical Sciences, and Life Sciences and Medicine. It comes with a total of US$1 million, split between the three recipients. Competitive with, although not quite as much as, the Nobel prize…

Brian Schmidt and Saul Perlmutter come to blows over whose universe is accelerating faster

Brian was the leader of the High-Z Supernova Search Team and Adam was lead author on their paper; Saul was the leader of the Supernova Cosmology Project and also lead author on their paper. (Get some more inside scoop from Rob Knop.) To most of us, their finding was a complete surprise, as we were all quite familiar with the fine-tuning problems associated with the cosmological constant (the most straightforward explanation for the acceleration). But by 1998, it had become impossible to deny that something fishy was going on — the universe was not the simple matter-dominated flat Einstein-de Sitter cosmology of the standard Cold Dark Matter model. In late 1997 I was asked to give a review talk at a CMB conference in Santa Barbara, on the topic of “every way to measure the cosmological parameters other than the CMB.” In assembling the talk the overall message came through loud and clear, from considerations of the age of the universe, direct measures of the mass density, and properties of large-scale structure. There were plenty of ideas floating in the air, including an open universe (the most obvious choice), warm dark matter, a mix of hot and cold dark matter, or some dramatic features in the primordial power spectrum, as well as the old standby cosmological constant. But only the last of these solved all of the problems with one fell swoop. So when the two supernova groups announced in 1998 that they had direct evidence that there really was a cosmological constant, in the form of an accelerating universe, the community was primed to believe them, which they did fairly quickly. Soon thereafter, of course, improved measurements of the CMB anisotropies indicated that the universe was spatially flat, in perfect accord with the combined supernova and matter-density measurements. If you were to plot the inferred density of both matter and cosmological constant, the constraints from the three different techniques — supernovae, matter dynamics (clusters or large-scale structure) and the CMB — the allowed regions overlapped in perfect harmony.

A preposterous universe, maybe, but I like it.

… to Sabine and Stefan!

I don’t think I recall any previous instances of physicist-marriage-blogging. Another first!

I had a great time in England, visiting my parents and catching as much of the World Cup as was reasonable. On Tuesday night we watched England as they managed a draw against Sweden to finish the first round at the top of their group, ensuring a second round match-up against Ecuador on Sunday. I’ll be watching that one back in the U.S., since I flew back yesterday, and although I’ll enjoy it, it won’t be quite the same as watching the game back in England.

Despite his reputation, David Beckham hasn’t really been pulling his weight in my opinion. Nevertheless, there have been a few moments of that wonderful Beckham touch, such as the one that led to the very first goal in England’s first game against Paraguay.

For those of you unfamiliar with Beckham’s specialty, it is the perfectly weighted curving ball, sometimes used as a direct shot on goal from a free kick, and other times used from a corner to land precisely on the head of a waiting striker. Since in both cases Beckham strikes the ball from a stationary position (the ball that is, not Beckham, I should point out in uncharacteristically David Foster Wallace-like style) after other players have positioned themselves strategically (a set piece), he is often referred to as a “dead-ball specialist”. The extent to which the path of the ball curves is particularly impressive, and is the source of the title of the well-known 1998 2002 movie Bend it Like Beckham.

Here’s a clip to show you what it looks like.

Anyone who plays football knows instinctively (by which I mean through extended practice and through watching experts do it) how to curve a ball. The trick is to put an appreciable amount of spin (or “english” for all you American pool players) on it, while being sure to strike the ball hard enough so that it goes some distance over which the spin can have its effect.

But the kids out there (and most of the adults, I’m guessing), have no idea why this works. So if you fall into this category, or you know someone who does and you’re looking or a resource to help explain it to them, SoccerBallWorld has the site for you.

The site contains an online version of a wonderful article that was first published in Physics World magazine, June 1998 pp25–27.

You can read over the FAQs about the physics of soccer balls. For example, you might be interested in the whether atmospheric pressure affects how soccer balls fly - an important question given the very different places World Cup finals are held. You’ll be told that

The atmospheric air pressure (the air surrounding the ball) also plays a role in how far a ball travels. At lower pressure, there’s less air friction. You can compare it to kicking the ball in a tank of water to kicking the ball on the moon. Balls go farther at high altitude because of the reduced drag from the air, which is thinner as you go higher up. So there’s a case where “reduced” air pressure makes the ball go farther.

But let’s face it, you’re almost certainly there because you feel in your bones that England will win the World Cup (OK, you always feel this way, but surely it’ll be different this time, won’t it?), and want to understand the physics behind Beckham’s contributions. Right?

If so, then you’ll want to start off reading about the aerodynamics of soccer balls; Bernouilli’s principle; the Magnus effect; the lift force and the drag force; and laminar flow.

Once you’ve absorbed that, then you might want to read on about the work that Japanese researchers at Yamagata University performed using finite-element analysis to simulate how people kick footballs. Finally, at this point, you should have a decent understanding of the Physics of Beckham.

Having done your solemn duty as a physicist, you are now free to sit back and watch England play Ecuador in the second round at 11am EST on Sunday.

I love the World Cup.

[Update: Jorge Pullin pointed me to this very cool site (in Spanish) about the physics of football. (Also, England won against Ecuador.)]

This was the hot topic at a panel discussion last week at SUSY06. There were two evening panel sessions at the conference, the first was on the Anthropic Principle and was reported on by Clifford. The seond was entitled, “Getting Ready for the LHC” and was infinitely more rancorous than the Anthropic session which was tame by comparison! Who would have guessed that?

The LHC panel members were: Gordy Kane (Michigan), Giacomo Polesello (CERN/Pisa), Maria Spiropulu (CERN), Konstantin Matchev (Florida), Howie Baer (Florida State), Tao Han (Wisconsin), Tilman Plehn (Edinburgh) and Joe Lykken (Fermilab) served as moderator. Each panel member spoke for a few minutes, then the floor was turned over for general discussion. However, Tao Han brought up a push-your-buttons topic during his presentation: he proposed that the LHC data should be made available to the community as maximal openess would only benefit the physics. He admitted that while us non-LHC experimenters could not comprehend the raw data, he proposed that LHC- experimenters store their data in ASCII and make it available to the public. First a gasp and then audible silence swept the audience as this has been a controversial topic for years.

(Off-topic, but I have to mention another statement of Tao Han’s that I really liked. He asked: How are we prepared for the LHC? And then noted that he himself has been working on this physics since 1987 and that after these long yrs, he declared that “I am ready for the LHC!” I could not have empathized more.)

Han’s public data proposal completely dominated the lively and sometimes heated discussion afterwards. Joe Lykken called Maria Spiropulu up to the podium to defend the bastion of the secret data experimental world, noting that the astrophysics community does make its data public (although I could not find a site while looking tonight - anybody know a URL?). Maria stood silent for a minute, then turned directly towards Tao and said a single word: “ASCII?” It brought the house down. Then she started on the usual diatribe on how their data would be useless as us theorists don’t understand the detectors, their data format, blah blah blah. Frankly, I think she (and experimenters in general) misunderstand the point and underestimate us. Tao Han did not ask for raw data - nobody without the proper background or code can comprehend that - he asked for the 4-vectors (the energy and momentum read-outs) in ASCII. In other words, he asked for the data after it had been processed and sifted, and churned into a useable format. It is the form of data that us particle theorists deal with in our Monte Carlo codes and is what the experimenter works with in the end. It is a reasonable request, but not likely to happen.

So, just who “owns” this data anyway? The experimenters feel that they worked hard and suffered to build the detector (and they have indeed), so the data and any discoveries are theirs. But, who came up with the theories that are being tested? Who did the calculations to see what type of machine should be built? Who convinced the politicians to build the machine? And last, but by no means least, who footed the bill to pay for the machine? So who really owns this data and why is it kept under lock and key?

(Photos courtesy of Bob Yen.)