Wednesday, September 3, 2014

CONSENT TO PUBLISH Form


CONSENT TO PUBLISH


So that journals published by the course director, Dr. A. Rafiee, can be
protected by copyright against unauthorized use, it is necessary that consent to publish be obtained from persons who contribute to this work. This form gives such consent. Please sign and return this copy to the course director. You may wish to keep a photocopy for your records.


I, ____________________________consent to have my (writing/illustration) from

The Course: History of Astronomy, NATS1745A used in a website entitled


to be published by Dr. A. Rafiee in his publication  “Can we prevent the end of the world?” or “Do We Need Geo-Engineering?

I understand that I will receive no compensation. I hereby assign publishing rights for this contribution, including all copyrights.


Student Name: ________________________________________________

Student Number: ______________________________________________

Signature: ____________________________________________________



Do We Need Geo-Engineering?

This is my effort to spread the news and open the public eyes on this subject which was beautifully explained by prof. Martin Rees during his talk for World Economic Forum. You can watch his talk here.


Published on March, 2014 by World Economic Forum 
"The world is getting warmer and more crowded but we can't predict the scale of the problem, says Lord Rees. The astronomer says we will know more in 20 years, and geo-engineering is a radical Plan B if other attempts to curb carbon dioxide emissions fail." 
 
 
What you read in follow are my students essays on his talk as part of the course "History of Astronomy", trying to elaborate the subject and to suggest solution. All students have signed the "consent to publication" form for their essays to be used here and they take full responsibility for what they have written. Please feel free to comment on their work or make a link to their work. I hope we can raise more awareness on human action and his responsibility toward Earth and Nature. 

Can we prevent the end of the world?

This is my effort to spread the news and open the public eyes on this subject which was beautifully explained by prof. Martin Rees during his talk for TED. You can watch his talk here.

Published on March, 2014 by TED
"A post-apocalyptic Earth, emptied of humans, seems like the stuff of science fiction TV and movies. But in this short, surprising talk, Lord Martin Rees asks us to think about our real existential risks — natural and human-made threats that could wipe out humanity. As a concerned member of the human race, he asks: What’s the worst thing that could possibly happen?"





What you read in follow are my students essays on his talk as part of the course "History of Astronomy", trying to elaborate the subject and to suggest solution. All students have signed the "consent to publication" form for their essays to be used here and they take full responsibility for what they have written. Please feel free to comment on their work or make a link to their work. I hope we can raise more awareness on human action and his responsibility toward Earth and Nature.

---------------------------------


Can we prevent the end of the world? Transcript



Transcript in English provided by TED at TED Talks

"0:11 Ten years ago, I wrote a book which I entitled "Our Final Century?" Question mark. My publishers cut out the question mark. (Laughter) The American publishers changed our title to "Our Final Hour." Americans like instant gratification and the reverse. (Laughter)
0:31 And my theme was this: Our Earth has existed for 45 million centuries, but this one is special — it's the first where one species, ours, has the planet's future in its hands. Over nearly all of Earth's history, threats have come from nature — disease, earthquakes, asteroids and so forth — but from now on, the worst dangers come from us. And it's now not just the nuclear threat; in our interconnected world, network breakdowns can cascade globally; air travel can spread pandemics worldwide within days; and social media can spread panic and rumor literally at the speed of light. We fret too much about minor hazards — improbable air crashes, carcinogens in food, low radiation doses, and so forth — but we and our political masters are in denial about catastrophic scenarios. The worst have thankfully not yet happened. Indeed, they probably won't. But if an event is potentially devastating, it's worth paying a substantial premium to safeguard against it, even if it's unlikely, just as we take out fire insurance on our house.
1:53 And as science offers greater power and promise, the downside gets scarier too. We get ever more vulnerable. Within a few decades, millions will have the capability to misuse rapidly advancing biotech, just as they misuse cybertech today. Freeman Dyson, in a TED Talk, foresaw that children will design and create new organisms just as routinely as his generation played with chemistry sets. Well, this may be on the science fiction fringe, but were even part of his scenario to come about, our ecology and even our species would surely not survive long unscathed. For instance, there are some eco-extremists who think that it would be better for the planet, for Gaia, if there were far fewer humans. What happens when such people have mastered synthetic biology techniques that will be widespread by 2050? And by then, other science fiction nightmares may transition to reality: dumb robots going rogue, or a network that develops a mind of its own threatens us all.
3:07 Well, can we guard against such risks by regulation? We must surely try, but these enterprises are so competitive, so globalized, and so driven by commercial pressure, that anything that can be done will be done somewhere, whatever the regulations say. It's like the drug laws — we try to regulate, but can't. And the global village will have its village idiots, and they'll have a global rage.
3:34 So as I said in my book, we'll have a bumpy ride through this century. There may be setbacks to our society — indeed, a 50 percent chance of a severe setback. But are there conceivable events that could be even worse, events that could snuff out all life? When a new particle accelerator came online, some people anxiously asked, could it destroy the Earth or, even worse, rip apart the fabric of space? Well luckily, reassurance could be offered. I and others pointed out that nature has done the same experiments zillions of times already, via cosmic ray collisions. But scientists should surely be precautionary about experiments that generate conditions without precedent in the natural world. Biologists should avoid release of potentially devastating genetically modified pathogens.
4:31 And by the way, our special aversion to the risk of truly existential disasters depends on a philosophical and ethical question, and it's this: Consider two scenarios. Scenario A wipes out 90 percent of humanity. Scenario B wipes out 100 percent. How much worse is B than A? Some would say 10 percent worse. The body count is 10 percent higher. But I claim that B is incomparably worse. As an astronomer, I can't believe that humans are the end of the story. It is five billion years before the sun flares up, and the universe may go on forever, so post-human evolution, here on Earth and far beyond, could be as prolonged as the Darwinian process that's led to us, and even more wonderful. And indeed, future evolution will happen much faster, on a technological timescale, not a natural selection timescale.
5:35 So we surely, in view of those immense stakes, shouldn't accept even a one in a billion risk that human extinction would foreclose this immense potential. Some scenarios that have been envisaged may indeed be science fiction, but others may be disquietingly real. It's an important maxim that the unfamiliar is not the same as the improbable, and in fact, that's why we at Cambridge University are setting up a center to study how to mitigate these existential risks. It seems it's worthwhile just for a few people to think about these potential disasters. And we need all the help we can get from others, because we are stewards of a precious pale blue dot in a vast cosmos, a planet with 50 million centuries ahead of it. And so let's not jeopardize that future.
6:28 And I'd like to finish with a quote from a great scientist called Peter Medawar. I quote, "The bells that toll for mankind are like the bells of Alpine cattle. They are attached to our own necks, and it must be our fault if they do not make a tuneful and melodious sound."
6:46 Thank you very much."

Monday, November 26, 2012

Redshift: Spectroscopic and Photometric Techniques


Redshift:


By definition, redshift is the shift in an emission or absorption line with respect to the rest frame estimate of the same line. In this notation, "z" represents the redshift, subscript "o" represents the observed quantity and subscript "e" represents the rest frame quantity and lambda stands for wavelength.

The middle spectrum would be the spectrum seen in the laboratory when the source and observer are not moving with respect to each other.

The top spectrum suggests that the source and the earth are moving toward each other because the lines are shifted to the blue part of the spectrum.

The bottom spectrum suggests that the source and the earth are moving away from one another because the lines are shifted to the red part of the spectrum.

In practice, one needs to identify the emission (absorption) lines wavelength and compare it with rest frame  wavelength using the above formula. This is sometimes called spectroscopic redshift or just redshift for short.

Photometric Redshift:

What do we do when we don't have the spectrum?

Photometric redshifts rely on multiband photometry with broad to medium filters. The more filters the better, but 3-4 are recommended at minimum. Robust photometry is essential for robust photo-z, including identical apertures in all images and corrections for different PSFs.

Artificial Neural Networks technique

  • ANNz learns the relation between photometry and redshift from an appropriate training set of galaxies for which the redshift is already known.
The ANNz package is demonstrated on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 1, and for this particular data set the r.m.s. redshift error in the range 0 < z < 0.7 is σrms = 0.023.

How to use ANNz:
  • Step 1 ) Using annz_net to create the Network architecture. We have 4 filters
Number of filters (minimum 1): 4
Number of hidden layers (minimum 1): 2 
Nodes in hidden layer 1: 10 
Nodes in hidden layer 2: 10 
Number of outputs (minimum 1): 1 
==This creates "arch.4.10.10.1.net" ==
recommended to use committee of several networks so we can create:
arch.4.10.10.1.net
arch.4.15.15.1.net
arch.4.20.20.1.net ...
  • Step 2 ) Using the trained network above on a test data
annz_train arch.4:10:10:1.net sdss.ugri.train sdss.ugri.valid sdss1.wts -7252
annz_train arch.4:15:15:1.net sdss.ugri.train sdss.ugri.valid sdss2.wts -7252 ...
==This creates the "sdss1.wts" and "sdss2.wts" ==
  • Step 3 ) Using annz_train to training the network using the SDSS train set and validation set provided by the code
annz_test data.ugri.test results.set sdss1.wts sdss2.wts 
==This creates the "results.set" ==
==Using committee of 2 networks, sdss1.wts and sdss2.wts== 
Where the file "data.ugri.test" includes 4 magnitudes ugri and then their errors respectively 

Further details of the ANNz method and package are given in:
  • Firth, A.E., Lahav, O. & Somerville, R.S., 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1195
  • Collister, A. A. & Lahav, O., 2004, PASP, 116, 345 (astro-ph/0311058)

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Doomsday by Kristin Jane Phillips

Introduction:

Sitting in the computer lab of my high school, my friend had told me that doomsday was upon us. It is a common belief that on the winter solstice (December 21) 2012 the end of world will come in correlation with the end of the Mayan calendar. Now in my second year of university, and nearing the winter solstice December 2010, I have found it increasingly intriguing to analyze these theories on doomsday to see if they hold up or can be proven by science. Thus, professor Rafiee and I have embarked on a comic journey into the speculations of doomsday that corresponds with the specific date of winter solstice 2012. In Regards to: solar flares, extra terrestrial planets, polar shifts, galactic alignment, and asteroid’s encounter; we have concluded that there is no catastrophic cosmic force that will cause the doomsday to occur on December 21, 2012. I will now explore all of the hypotheses of astronomical intervention that are believed to hinder the end of geological life on earth, to determine whether these hypotheses can be recognized as fact or fantasy.

Solar Flares:

Solar Flares are enormous explosions in the suns atmosphere as defined by NASA. They involve the eruption of magnetic energy around sunspots. These impulsive flares accelerating mostly electrons and protons can occur over 1000 times during a solar maximum. Solar maximum is part of a cycle of the sun’s activity that peaks every 11 years. Our last solar maximum was in 2002-2003, and we are about to enter the phase of the solar maximum once again in 2013. We have already seen a report from NASA’s SOHO observing the largest X-ray solar flare in years which occurred on November 8th 2010. But what does this mean for us on earth? Large X-ray flares do have the ability to cause damage to satellites orbiting Earth. They also have the ability to interrupt radio waves. This would result in problems with global communication, and maybe even temporal power outages in some regions; but global destruction is highly unlikely and controllable. So, it is safe to say that the world will not come to an end by any means through a gigantic solar flare in 2012.

Planet X, Nibiru:

Many ideas about doomsday come from the origin of a Planet X also known as Nibiru. It is a popular belief amongst non-scientific scholars that there is a planet that exists on a highly elliptical orbit that will smash into the earth, or at least come very close in 2012. This idea must be the most preposterous of all the other hypotheses since its existence cannot be astronomically proven. It has never been witnessed by any telescope on earth or in space. This simple fact shatters the hypothesis of this Plant X existing since; after all, we can detect extra terrestrial plants that orbit other stars as well as small asteroids or comets beyond the Neptune orbits with the current technology. Lastly, planet X is defined as an unidentified orbital object. Upon initial speculation the object is given the name plant X until astronomers can identify what it is and then they give it a real name. There is no plant X, and if objects were discovered to be planets or dwarf planets, they would be given a real name like Eris or Pluto.

Polar Shift:

The hypothesis of doomsday claims that there will be a 180 degree reversal of the poles both physical and magnetic that will occur in a matter of days if not hours in 2012. This however is the juxtaposition of two completely different types of polar shifts. There are two kinds of polar shifts that coincide with the two features of our earth. Physical polar shifts refer to the shifting of the Earth’s tectonic plates that would alter the physical location of the planets pole. Magnetic polar shifts refer to the shifting of the Earth’s pole in relation to the direction of our magnetosphere. The earths tectonic plates do in fact move approximately 2-3 centimeters every year on average; but, it would take millions of years for the plates to reverse unless coerced by a giant impact; something more massive than an asteroid or even Niburu. However, such threatening objects must be visible now by current technology. Magnetic polar shifts occur on earth all the time at a pace slower than a human could walk. On average between the years 1831 and 2001 the magnetic pole has moved 7- 8 kilometers each year or 22 meters a day. Magnetic reversals do occur at unpredictable and irregular times that average out to be every 300 thousand years and there has been no evidence of this happening in the past 780 thousand years. Does this mean that we are going to have one so catastrophic that the poles will reverse in a matter of days? Absolutely not, magnetic reversal of the poles does not happen over night. The process takes roughly a few thousand years to complete. Once again, you should notice that the hypothesis of catastrophic polar shifts have been combined as if they were the same thing; which they are not, and since they work on two completely different time scales. The idea of both occurring on this date (2012) is implausible and quite farcical to anyone who has an understanding of Astronomy.

Galactic Alignment:

There is also a fear of Galactic alignment in doomsday hypes. Universe today, a devoted website to astronomy, gives us a scientific definition of a galactic alignment; where the Earth, Sun, and center of the galaxy are in perfect alignment from our perspective; meaning that, galactic alignment is an annual visual effect that takes place every December 21st , including the winter solstice 2012. This apparent alignment has happened for the last few thousand years and will happened for the next few thousand years during the winter solstice. The second type is; galactic alignment of the solar system with galactic center. Sun orbits around the galactic center once every 220 million years. At the same time, it oscillates up and down crossing the galactic plane once every 64 million years. So it is possible for the solar system to be perfectly aligned with the galactic plane; however, our solar system is far way from the galactic plane now, thus any possible threat due alignments on 2012 will be implausible.

Apophis, Asteroid Collision:

There is a threat that can be proven by science, which Neil deGrasse Tyson brings to the attention of the public. This is an asteroid know as Apophis since it was identified in 2004. It is believed that this asteroid could possibly enter a keyhole in between the Earths atmosphere. If this happens the asteroid could very likely impact the earth’s ocean causing tsunamis and major devastation to our plant. The probability of this asteroid hitting the earth, when it was discovered in 2004, was a likely hood of one in 45,000. Since NASA has refined its observations of Apophis the likelihood has yet decreased now to one in a 45 million chance of global impact. Now in regards to this threat, the date has been set for April 13th 2036, not 2012. Yet for some reason people are not captivated by 2036 even though there is actual proof that this asteroid poses factual threat, more than any other topic that we have discussed thus far.

Conclusion:

Now I would like to take you into the conclusive findings of this cosmic journey. My motive in this paper has not been to disprove doomsday, but to disprove that it will occur December 21st 2012. Solar Flares have been known to cause damage, especially during solar maximum, to satellites orbiting earth but they will not have a devastating impact on human civilization. It is safe to say that plant Niburu is not a 5th terrestrial plant that will impact Earth. In my introduction I refer to the planet X as an extra terrestrial, when I say extra I do not mean it in its proper definition, planets orbiting other stars, I was merely classifying this object as an extra or 5th planet until I could further disprove its existence. We have also talked about the possibilities of two types of polar shifts and concluded that neither is possible in 2012, separately or simultaneously. Galactic alignment will occur on the winter solstice of 2012 and it will continue to happen merely as a visual effect for approximately the next 1100 years (depending on your precision). Alignment of our solar system with galactic center could possibly occur, but we do not have the instruments or information that would help us predict with precision and accuracy when this would occur. One thing that our technology can infer is that 100% galactic alignment will not be possible in our lifetime.

What we do know and what we can prove is that asteroids do pose an Actual threat to our world. If an asteroid is a minimum of 10 kilometers it would impact the earth with so much force that it would cause global extinction. Apophis is much less than one kilometer, therefore; it has the ability to cause tsunamis and earth quakes. But for some reason we are not worried by the facts, there is a proven 1-to- 45million chance of collision, though it seems small it is a relatively higher than all other possible hypotheses of doomsday. Now I ask the reader of this paper to Google 2012 to come to a conclusion on why there is so much hype around 2012 and not 2036 (Apophis collision). I guarantee that the first sources you will read about are the ones on the official website of the movie being promoted called 2012. You will also see advertisements or t-shirts, hats and other paraphernalia to raise revenues for major Hollywood production companies. This trend in marketing became especially popular in the late 90’s and can be exemplified by the tale of the Blair Witch Project, where a story that is completely fiction is marketed as a true story. If you look at the facts of the 2012 theory topics and separate them the reality resonates; there is no facts composed within this tangled web of fictional scientific fantasies.

Bibliography

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/flare.html
http://www.universetoday.com/14645/2012-no-killer-solar-flare/
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/29dec_mag http://www.universetoday.com/30762/galactic-alignment/neticfield.html
http://the-cosmic-journey.blogspot.com/search/label/asteroids
http://the-cosmic-journey.blogspot.com/search/label/2012
http://the-cosmic-journey.blogspot.com/search/label/Doomsday
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/oct/HQ_09-232_Apophis_Update.html