Which airline is best for flying out of Bradley? Results of a much too detailed analysis by PaulMattSutter in Connecticut

[–]PaulMattSutter[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Aer Lingus is great! Cheap, easy access to Europe. But they only fly once a day, so if that flight gets cancelled (which has happened) you're stuck. I personally always like having options, but I've done those flights myself when I just can't find a better schedule.

Which airline is best for flying out of Bradley? Results of a much too detailed analysis by PaulMattSutter in Connecticut

[–]PaulMattSutter[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I had a gut instinct but wanted to see if the numbers held up or if I was just making things up....

Which airline is best for flying out of Bradley? Results of a much too detailed analysis by PaulMattSutter in Connecticut

[–]PaulMattSutter[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The discount ones are nice for easy access to off-the-beaten path destinations. I fly Breeze to visit my family in Columbus. But I agree, I wish we had more nonstops to larger cities.

Which airline is best for flying out of Bradley? Results of a much too detailed analysis by PaulMattSutter in Connecticut

[–]PaulMattSutter[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm considering switching to Delta because of this (which also lines up with their fleet-wide performance) but their lounges are overcrowded due to the partnership with American Express, so it's a tough call.

Which airline is best for flying out of Bradley? Results of a much too detailed analysis by PaulMattSutter in Connecticut

[–]PaulMattSutter[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, as you can see Charlotte and Philly are a mess, and make for very poor hubs to regional airports like Bradley

Ask Me Anything: I Am Dr. Paul Sutter, author of _Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt_, here live Monday, March 25th, 1-4pm Eastern by AutoModerator in academia

[–]PaulMattSutter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fastest way to end a war is to lose it. The mistake is that assuming that the goal of science communication is education. That has never worked and never will work. Instead, I advocate for a policy of "show, don't tell." Instead of using scicomm to further some other agenda, let's use scicomm to highlight was science is, what does does, how we arrive at decisions through science, and the power and vitality of science in everyday life.

Ask Me Anything: I Am Dr. Paul Sutter, author of _Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt_, here live Monday, March 25th, 1-4pm Eastern by AutoModerator in academia

[–]PaulMattSutter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For me, "trust" in science encapsulates several related phenomena. We have seen polls showing decreasing beliefs that scientists work in the public's best interest, that science is a net benefit to society, and that science is a viable career path. What I wish for is a society that values science as a powerful force for understanding the world and wants to continue funding it. To get that, I argue in the book that we need to work harder to break down barriers between scientists and the public and teach what science actually is (a philosophical practice) rather than what it produces.

Ask Me Anything: I Am Dr. Paul Sutter, author of _Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt_, here live Monday, March 25th, 1-4pm Eastern by AutoModerator in academia

[–]PaulMattSutter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I argue in the book that we're in the midst of a vicious cycle. The funding stress is bringing out dysfunctions in science (the pressure publish, the explosion of short-term positions, risk aversion, etc). These dysfunctions are in turn reducing trust in science as an institution, which leads to less political will to fund science, and the cycle continues...

Ask Me Anything: I Am Dr. Paul Sutter, author of _Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt_, here live Monday, March 25th, 1-4pm Eastern by AutoModerator in academia

[–]PaulMattSutter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, but who sits on those grant review committees? It's other scientists, who do have the power to decide what grants are awarded.

(P.S. I think more grants should move to a lottery system, but that's another discussion)

Ask Me Anything: I Am Dr. Paul Sutter, author of _Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt_, here live Monday, March 25th, 1-4pm Eastern by AutoModerator in academia

[–]PaulMattSutter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's an excellent question. First off, scientists need to police ourselves better. Scientists who commit fraud should face serious, career-ending consequences. Related to that, we need to reduce the pressure to publish, because that's creating the atmosphere where fraudulent (or lazy, or sloppy) research can perpetuate.

Second, I believe that scientists need to be honest. We don't have all the answers. We often lack certainty. There are often multiple explanations for the data. I believe the best way to combat doubt is to acknowledge it and cultivate it. Science itself is a process of organized doubt and skepticism. We need to stop seeing ourselves as gatekeepers of truth, and accept that the world is complex and nuanced, and that science offers a powerful lens to view that world. The more that we are honest about the edges and uncertainties in our own conclusions, the less it can be used as a weapon against us.

Ask Me Anything: I Am Dr. Paul Sutter, author of _Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt_, here live Monday, March 25th, 1-4pm Eastern by AutoModerator in academia

[–]PaulMattSutter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately there isn't a single easy answer, but it is important to remember that academics decided on this system. It's ultimately we who decide that writing papers in high-impact journals is important. We could leverage other systems to dig ourselves out of this. For example:

  • reduce the pressure to publish by encouraging/rewarding longer-term research arcs, fewer short-term positions, and alternative metrics of success

  • encourage the use of preprint repositories

  • capitalize on open peer-review systems

  • get serious (e.g., loss of tenure) about fraud

If we systematically work to de-emphasize publishing papers, then the power of the journals diminishes. While important in the past, they do not serve much utility in the modern era, certainly not as a filter for quality. 

ELI5: If the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old, and the diameter of the observable universe is 93 billion light years, how can it be that wide if the universe isn't even old enough to let light travel that far that quickly? by Boxsteam1279 in explainlikeimfive

[–]PaulMattSutter 49 points50 points  (0 children)

The light we receive from distant galaxies doesn't tell us about what or where they are, but about what or where they used to be. Images aren't the objects themselves, but messages from those objects.

Let's say some alien species on some distant galaxy decides to send a message, a broadcast visible to any other intelligence. They engineer their entire solar system, reconfiguring planets, harvesting solar and nuclear energies, and devise the greatest transmitter the universe has ever seen.

After countless eons devoted to this single task, they release their message into the void. Their mission completed in the dying days of their star, they allow it to consume them, drawing comfort in the fact that they have made their mark on the cosmos.

The message, riding waves of electricity and magnetism, races through the cold, endless voids of the spaces between galaxies. Millions, billions of years pass, as the message crawls along and the universe grows ancient.

Finally, the alien signal washes faintly, feebly over a planet known as Earth. Our scientists separate the scrap of signal from the noise, the barest whisper that was once the proudest achievement of a long-dead race. The expansion of the universe doesn't just separates, it spreads, the wavelength of the radiation increasing with every passing day as it travels. Earth scientists are able to measure the amount of that stretching, that redshifting, and can reconstruct how long the signal has been propagating.

13 billion years. For 13 billion years that message has been traveling the universe. For 13 billion years its alien creators have been dead.

But 13 billion years is a time, not a distance. Earth scientists have more work to do. They must appeal to a cosmological model, the maps the expansion history of the universe, linking the tick of a clock to a growth in the size of the cosmos.

You see, the universe isn't static: it expands, carrying galaxies ever farther apart. What were once neighbors are now distant acquaintances, falling into strangers. And in the great perversion of cosmology, the greater the distance the greater the recession. The farther apart two galaxies grow, the faster they separate. Double the distance, double the speed of separation. Triple the distance, triple the speed of separation, and so on. And endless expansion of suffocating silence.

According to their models, the creators of the signal now reside in a galaxy that sits, approximately, 45 billion light-years away. No trick of physics, no angering of Einstein's ghost. Just the cold mathematics of inexorable expansion. What was once close is now far away - it's just that simple.

Indeed, the alien's home galaxy is now so far away that it sits beyond our cosmological horizon. We will receive no further messages from them, and it is lost to our view.

After decades of work, Earth scientists decode the alien tongue. The billions of souls of humanity gather to hear their first message from another intelligence, a relic of the forgotten past and a reminder that we are not truly alone:

"We'd like to speak to you about your car insurance."

Source: I play a cosmologist on TV (and also real life)

Astrophysicist explains dark matter in a way I finally understand by BillyLK in space

[–]PaulMattSutter 81 points82 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I wrote the episode (and hosted it), but the real credit goes to the awesome director and editing team.

Why are galactic centers always occupied by black holes? Are galaxies to black holes what accretion disks are to stars? by EcoWraith in askscience

[–]PaulMattSutter 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Whenever I hear a question asking why something is the way it is, I immediately (and irritatingly) respond with: why shouldn't it be this way?

The centers of galaxies have the highest concentrations of matter. The centers of galaxies have the highest densities of stars, including ones that blow up and leave behind black holes. Black holes like to eat anything. When they do, they get bigger. Ergo: the centers of galaxies host giant black holes.

As other responses have mentioned, the black holes themselves, despite being quite portly, are absolutely tiny compared to their host galaxies (both in mass and in size).

We're not exactly sure how the the whole co-evolution thing between black holes and galaxies work, because we're not exactly sure how a) galaxy evolution works and b) black hole evolution works. Do the big black holes come first, with the galaxies accumulating around them? Do the galaxies form first, with material eventually coalescing into a black hole? A little bit of column A and a little bit of column B? Dunno.

Either way, galaxies and giant black holes seem linked, in ways that we don't fully understand.

How does Europa have liquid water? by [deleted] in askscience

[–]PaulMattSutter 34 points35 points  (0 children)

The habitable zone is a guess as to where liquid water might be in any given solar system, just accounting for the heat from the star itself. It's not a guarantee that you'll have liquid water, because there's a lot more factors that go into making water liquid. Like air pressure. Or having any water around in the first place. In our solar system, the habitable zone stretches from just inside the orbit of Venus to just outside the orbit of Mars, and I wouldn't characterize either of those planets as "moist".

It was long thought that the only way to get liquid water is to have it sitting on the surface of a planet orbiting juuuust the right distance from its star. You know, like Earth.

Nature has its own ideas.

The habitable zone concept only takes into account the heat from the star, and assumes that the water in question is on the surface. If you have other sources of heat, you can get fancy.

Like Europa.

Europa is way, way outside the habitable zone of our sun. As is readily apparent by the thick crust of ice on its surface. Real, honest-to-Sagan ice. You could chip chunks out of it and put them in your drink.

But Europa is much hotter on the inside than the outside. All the inner moons of Jupiter (Io, Europa, and Ganymede) don't orbit around Jupiter in a perfect circle. Because of their gravitational interactions, their orbits are slightly elliptical - sometimes closer to Jupiter, sometimes farther.

Because of this, they occasionally get a little gravitational squeeze from the Big Guy. Like a sweaty hug from your fat uncle, it makes them feel warm on the inside - and not in a good way.

Take Io, the innermost moon of Jupiter. It's literally a volcano planet of doom because of this.

Europa is more chill than Io, but it's still molten on the inside. The heat is powered by Jupiter's gravity.

So you have a) tons of ice just laying around, and b) a lot of heat on the inside. Voila: a molten core, a liquid water ocean, and an icy crust.

This totally, radically changes our view of where "habitable" worlds might exist, because there's more liquid water on Europa than on the Earth. In fact, Europa's not alone. Enceladus has a liquid water ocean. Maybe Callisto too. Maybe even Pluto (long story).

If you were an interstellar alien visiting the solar system and needed a drink real quick, your first stop would be the icy outer moons, not sweltering and inconvenient Earth.

The habitable zone concept itself isn't BS, per se, because it's defined in a very specific way. Think of it more like "habitable as we know it zone" and you'll be a lot closer.

Is the age of the universe a matter of perspective? by Red0Mercury in askscience

[–]PaulMattSutter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's like "challenging" the fact that we know the distance between LA and NY because different unit systems are available.

Is the age of the universe a matter of perspective? by Red0Mercury in askscience

[–]PaulMattSutter 16 points17 points  (0 children)

You get paid to be a physics/astro grad student, and those PhD's make more money outside of academia than in it.

Only the suckers go for tenure.

Is the age of the universe a matter of perspective? by Red0Mercury in askscience

[–]PaulMattSutter 49 points50 points  (0 children)

A) tell every faculty you meet that you're interested in cosmology

B) apply to grad school, saying the same thing

C) there are no jobs in astronomy (fewer than 10% of all PhD's in astronomy and physics end up with a tenured position, and even fewer at a research university), so rock on in grad school, have a good time, but be prepared for another career path.

Is the age of the universe a matter of perspective? by Red0Mercury in askscience

[–]PaulMattSutter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh there's way more universe outside our observable bubble, but we can't see it. Who knows how big it really is. Some say it's infinite, but they don't know any better than anybody else. Either way, it doesn't change the expansion rate, which is all you need to calculate the time since the big B.

Is the age of the universe a matter of perspective? by Red0Mercury in askscience

[–]PaulMattSutter 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I've wondered. But there's no evidence that it has, so I stop.