7 Gpeople

While at a conference in Istanbul, I went to the İSTANBUL ARKEOLOJİ MÜZELERİ, which was an absolutely fascinating archeology museum. Istanbul has featured prominently in the growth of civilization, and I struggled to keep track of the many different civilizations and cultures that occupied the region at one time or another. I had to find a youtube video to help me sort it out.

There was a very nice exhibit on Troia (Troy), which apparently really existed; it's ruins were unearthed in a farm field not too far from here. It was settled, destroyed, and resettled in 9 different epochs before being ultimately abandoned. Even back then, it seems that anything you dug up had a 1000-year history. Buildings were built on top of buildings. The reconstruction of the different settlements was interesting.

It was really hard for me to get my head around how small cities were in comparison to now. Istanbul currently has 13 Mpeople living in its greater metropolitan area. In 3000 BC, that was the human population of the world. The largest cities in antiquity were ~250 kpeople. It made me wonder if all of our advancements in technology and culture in the last couple hundred years could be attributed strictly to 1) more people to do the work and 2) longer tails on the normal distribution of people with various abilities.

So just how many people were there as a function of time? The log-log plot above from wikipedia shows current best estimates. Apparently, some 70 kyears ago, possibly as a result of a major volcano eruption, the human population was reduced to something on the order of 1000 to 10,000 "breeding pairs." Since then, the population rapidly recovered to several million, where it remained stable until agriculture was developed. This is all in a nice video tracing genetic migration via mDNA.


Since then, there has been exponential growth (a line on log-log plots) with a transition to a slower growth coefficient at ~400 BC. Occasional Black Plagues aside, the human population has increased dramatically. I remember hearing once that half the people who ever lived are alive right now. That's actually definitely false--it's closer to 6%. Also, everyone seems to think that population growth is accelerating (remember this video from the 80's ?). The graph above definitely shows that's not true, either.

But what is true is that this growth cannot continue unchecked without hitting its head on something, be it food supply, global warming, danger of pandemics, warfare, declining birth rates, or whathaveyou. It's estimated that in October of this year, 2011, there will be 7 Gpeople on the planet. This map shows where the population currently is, but it's estimated that much of the growth in the next century will happen in poverty-stricken Africa. Things pretty much have to plateau around 10 Gpeople, though.

So what to do? The most effective ways to reduce birth rates, which is key to controlling population growth, global warming, saving the environment, and many of the rest of our problems are:

1. contraception
2. improving the standard of living (ending poverty)
   
3. education (and education about contraception)
   
4. and reducing infant/child mortality

That last item is counter-intuitive. The reason it is important is that when survival rates are low, couples have more children to compensate, including a buffer for uncertainty. Having a predictable path from birth to adulthood allows for more precision in family planning.

The "New" Zodiac and the Earth's Spin

The latest rage in popular astronomy seems to be the realization that the Sun may now move through 13 constellations instead of 12. I haven't personally checked this, so I'm going to take their word for it. What's bothering me is something else that's being repeated in connection--that this is "due to shifts in the earth's rotation and orbit", or more flagrantly, that "since the zodiac periods were established millennia ago, the moon's gravitational pull has made the Earth 'wobble' around its axis in a process called precession".
Someone (I guess, me) needs to make it clear that any shift in the apparent path of the Sun through the background constellations can only be caused by a change in the inclination of the Earth's orbit (possibly as a result of the precession of the Earth's slightly inclined orbit around the Sun), not the precession of the Earth's axis of spin.

The reason the Sun appears to move through background constellations is because we're moving around the Sun (see figure to left). From the perspective of Earth (blue dots), the Sun (orange) appears in front of a different set of stars at different times of year, when the Earth is at different positions in its orbit. The project of the Sun from the perspective of the Earth is shown with dashed lines.

Now the thing is, that dashed line from the Earth through the Sun doesn't depend at all on the Earth's spin. To see this, imagine you remove the Earth from one of those locations and instead place yourself floating in space. You could turn any which way you want--upside-down, rightside-up, twisted alley-oop--the Sun is going to be in the same place relative to the stars behind. Similarly, the Earth's spin (and any precession in that spin axis) can change the orientation of the Earth, but makes no difference in what stars the Sun appears in front of.

What actually can change where the Sun appears relative to background stars is the physical location of the Earth.
This is a change in the Earth's orbit, not spin. One way to change where the Sun appears relative to background constellations is to move the Earth to different places in its elliptical orbit. This will move the Sun through the standard set of zodiacal constellations. In order to move the Sun out of the normal zodiacal progression, you need to move the Earth up or down. The way this can happen is if the plane of the Earth's orbit precesses around another axis, so that the "high" point in the orbit moves slowly around the Sun.

So to clarify, if the Sun appears to move through a new constellation, it is because the Earth's orbit around the Sun has changed, not because the Earth's spin has changed.

AstroBaki on MediaWiki

I just started up a new wiki called AstroBaki. The main reason I did this was that my MoinMoin AIPY wiki was clunky to use and was getting spammed lots. I switched to the MediaWiki engine, which has better automated control over these kinds of things. As an added bonus, MediaWiki has support for latex math. This got me thinking...

When I started grad school, I had a hard time transitioning from feeling like I was producing and contributing (I was working as a development engineer for SETI) to just absorbing knowledge. To make myself feel better and more invested in learning, I started doing something for which I became moderately famous around the department: latexing lecture notes on-the-fly. For full disclosure, I should mention that I copycatted the idea of latexing on-the-fly from my friend Phil.

The key to success is to use lots of "defs", and to recognize when you need to def a sequence of commands. When the same sequence of symbols started popping up, I would pretend that I had already def'd the command and start using it, and when there was a pause in the derivation, I would remember to scribble down what that command should mean. In my later years, I also started drawing figures in paint for inclusion in latex.

Anyway, I now have about 4 or 5 latex'd class notes that I have put on my website. From what I hear, they are still regularly used in UCB classes, and I occasionally get happy emails from grad students thanking me for the effort. Meanwhile, I've been reading a book about Nicolas Bourbaki, a famous pseudonym for a group of (mostly French) mathematicians who collaboratively re-wrote mathematics from 1935 to the 70s. Nicolas Bourbaki was a wiki, ahead of its time.

"Now wouldn't it be cool," I thought to myself, "if students using these lecture notes could fix them when they are wrong (after all, they were written on-the-fly), and re-organize them to make more sense?" Could these notes become a sort of open-source textbook for astronomy? So AstroBaki was born.

The difficulty, I am finding, is in translating latex (especially latex heavy in defs) into mediawiki. The best tool I've found so far has been pandoc, which didn't do the defs, but did everything else pretty well. I'm loath to do things by hand, so I'll see what can be automated, and I'll keep you posted.

Hands-On Cosmology Education

Yesterday I spent the morning giving a gosh-wow talk about cosmology to a physics class at Athenian High School taught by my housemate Dave Otten. It was a lot of fun, and the students were all very enthusiastic. It was almost entirely driven by their questions, and they loved being pitched curveballs (time is reference-frame dependent, the universe is expanding, spiral arms are standing waves, etc). The hour-and-a-half lecture was over before we knew it.

Afterward, Dave mentioned that it would be really cool if there were a way to talk about galactic-scale astronomy and cosmology that was in keeping with the philosophy of their school, which emphasizes lab-based, hands-on learning. He mentioned that PhET is a free resource he uses for providing interactive simulations that make hands-on labs out of subjects that otherwise would be too slow, small, big, fast, or dangerous to perform live in a classroom. He also lamented that there aren't any galactic- or cosmological-scale simulators there that could help to understand how systems on this scale behave, and that could perhaps illustrate exactly where the problems of dark matter and dark energy are encountered. Has anyone seen something like this?

Playing, and Why The Fast Track Wasn't the Best Track

A NY Times article on playing today got me thinking about the indirect path I took to being an astronomer. I went to school at Harvard with a lot of very bright people (and even managed to marry one of them). The undergraduate academic experience at Harvard was a little hard on me, though it took me several years after I graduated to fully understand why. The first reason is pretty common to undergraduates at Harvard--intelligent and accomplished people who are used to being the best at what they do are suddenly brought into contact with quite a few people who are better than they are. For driven students, this blow to the ego can undercut some of the self-assurance necessary to work productively.

What was harder on me than turning in my "big fish" status as I moved to a larger pond was the cultural mismatch that existed between myself and the faculty with whom I came into contact. Harvard physics (or at least physics instruction) has a strongly theoretical bent to it, and while some modicum of application is maintained through the 2 lab courses we were required to take, I was always given the impression that applied fields were a cop-out for theoreticians who couldn't make the cut. The culture of disdain for experimentalists kept me on a theoretical track throughout college, long past the point at which I was "having fun". I can tell when I'm having fun, because I play. Playing, as defined in the article above, is "apparently purposeless activity." For me, that means trying to answer questions that aren't on the homework, just out of curiosity. It means starting projects, building things, and enjoying it. The farther I went down the theory track, I less I played with what I was learning. The undergraduate curriculum left little time for doing anything that wasn't strictly required, which was one problem, but the larger problem was that the path I was taking wasn't supporting the kind of playing I like to do.

I got lucky when I enrolled in an introductory electronics class with Paul Horowitz. I found myself, outside of class, trying to teach the computer I'd built to shoot a dart at a mechanical dinosaur. I modified a remote sensing, squawking penguin to spit water at passers-by. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was playing. After I graduated, somewhat at a loss for what to do, and burnt out with physics, I asked Paul if he knew anyone I could work for. He introduced me to Dan Werthimer at Berkeley, where I started designing and building electronics for SETI. Out of school, I suddenly had a lot more time for diversions, and I began learning Python and using it to write evolving programs that mutated their own source code. I tried writing speech recognition (I'll post someday about language acquisition, one of my favorite diversions). I made a guitar website to learn cgi programming. Most telling, I (mostly) gave up video games for computer programming, which indicates the degree to which this really was playing for me.

Eventually I stumbled into radio astronomy, where the physics that I learned (and really did love), met with the electronics and programming that I loved playing with. An incredible number of skills that I currently use were developed during my diversions, including Python programming, soldering, web programming, and signal processing. I never took classes in any of these things, I just learned them from my projects. What I didn't understand as an undergraduate was that working can really be "playing" if you find the right job, and that if you don't play with what you're doing, you might be barking up the wrong tree. Moreover, I was able to learn and accomplish much more when I was in a laboratory environment, playing with what I was learning, than in a classroom listening to lectures. Of course, you can't learn everything from playing--you need people to take you beyond what you have immediately at hand--but for me at least, I would rather this be the exception to the rule. Playing shouldn't just be for kids.