In the footsteps of Jocelyn Bell

When I was in my last year at Cambridge, by which time my Natural Sciences degree had been refined down to experimental physics, I had to do a project. I had always been fascinated by radio astronomy, often passing Jodrell Bank on the way to a friend's house when at school: with a fellow student I was offered the chance to try some basic radio astronomy. We weren't given a handy, off-the-shelf, giant steerable dish, though. We had to start from scratch.

One huge advantage I had in teaming up with Dave Izod (apologies if I got the name wrong - it was a long time ago) was that he had the huge advantage of being a (then) rare undergraduate with a car. The Mullard radio astronomy observatory was over four miles from my college and I didn't have a bike.

One of the reasons the exercise was so satisfying was that it involved picking up a whole range of new skills. The starting point, for example, was using a theodolite to determine levels before partially constructing and deploying an antenna that bore more resemblance to a bed frame than the familiar dish shape. There was then a whole host of measurements to be made before data could be collected and some attempt made at interpreting it (with a large amount of help from a patient grad student).

We did finally manage to pick up some radio signals and have a guess at what they were (sorry, analyse them), but what this brought home was the sheer indirectness of radio astronomy - particularly at a time when the technology employed was often so basic. This was as compared with modern equipment's ability to give you far more than just a list of numbers on a print out, which was all we got. I am totally in awe of Jocelyn Bell Burnell (at the time Jocelyn Bell) who had detected the first pulsars using equipment that was similarly basic (if much larger - see part of her 'array' illustrated above) less than 10 years before.

There is considerable controversy over Bell Burnell's lack of a share in the Nobel Prize - she herself has always been surprisingly sanguine on the matter, saying that she didn't think it was appropriate for research students to receive the Nobel 'except in very exceptional cases', which she didn't believe hers to be. However, I am more inclined to follow the lead of one of my other Cambridge-based astronomical heroes, Fred Hoyle who thought this was, indeed, an exceptional case and that her omission was more a matter of sexism on the part of the Nobel committee than anything else.

Whatever was the reality, working briefly, if on a toy project, at the Mullard was an amazing experience and hugely increased my admiration for those who have brought us such discoveries. Modern science writing often gives us a bit more a feel of the realities of scientific work - but I think radio astronomy is one field where we are so aware of the dish antennae that it's easy to forget what important work was done with a few wires, crude equipment, no computers and a lot of hard work.

Image: Part of the Cambridge Interplanetary Scintillation Array - courtesy of the Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog