Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:22, 30 January 2015

Template:Vital article

This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of September 3, 2005.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Past cotw

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Experimental and Computational Astrophysics Sections Needed

Experimental Astrophysics: Experimental astrophysics is at the intersection of astronomy, engineering, and physics, in other words, research specializing in the design and construction of astronomical instrumentation. Experimentalists find astronomical problems that demand technical innovation for their solution, problems that cannot be solved using existing techniques or instruments. The development of new detector technologies, new instruments, and new concepts for future astrophysics space missions open up new possibilities for discovery.

Computational Astrophysics: Astrophysical processes are extremely nonlinear and computers are essential to understanding them. This involves building on analytical models, desktop calculations, and high-quality observations to conduct large-scale parallel computations with detailed, testable predictions. Computational astrophysicists do not merely run public domain codes‭,‬ but rather lead efforts to develop‭, ‬implement, ‬and test new state-of-the-art algorithms in many areas‭. ‬

--72.193.73.84 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate history section

The history section inaccurately expounds too much on pre-modern astronomy. Modern physics essentially started with Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Halley and some few more, but evolved slowly until the 19th century, when stellar dynamics and spectroscopy was emerging. We almost don't need the extensive text on antique and medieval cosmology, which is almost off-topical, since premodern astronomy could be said to be pre-physics science. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 10:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so much that the pre-modern section is inaccurate, but that it is inappropriate. According to the OED, the terms astrophysics and astrophysicist first appeared in 1870 and 1869, respectively. The oldest texts where these words appear refer to their concern with the "luminous spectra of the heavenly bodies" and "the influences which pressure and temperature exercise on the nature of the spectrum of luminous gases." In sum, the original meaning of the term was concerned with the use of spectral information to determine the composition of celestial bodies and gases. Since, then, astrophysics has expanded to consider the physical processes within the stars and in the interstellar medium.

As it stands, this article expands the meaning of astrophysics to include the early celestial mechanics of Newton's Principia; Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter, and even a wide range of early discussions of the cause of the tides. If this article were to consider the history of the composition of the celestial bodies before the Nineteenth Century, it would probably be appropriate to discuss the various concepts that celestial bodies were made of a different kind of material, as advanced by Plato (Fire) and Aristotle (Aether) and Galileo's arguments to the contrary that celestial bodies were Earthlike in their nature. Such a historical narrative leads more naturally to the use of spectra to identify earthlike elements in the stars, than does the article's present one.

I'd welcome comments from astronomers about what kind of historical treatment would reflect the modern scope of astrophysics. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

After looking further at the historical treatment, It seems appropriate to delete most of the discussion of pre-modern cosmology, replacing it with a brief discussion of the material nature of the Aristotelian cosmos. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Information and references

I've been looking at this article and feel that there is much to be improved. For an article on such a weighty scientific field, it seems to be lacking in sufficient references, furthermore, the introduction does not set out the basics and principles of astrophysics as clearly as it should. I'm by no means an expert on the topic and merely fascinated by it, as such I feel my contributions to the page would be limited. Nonetheless, for those who are more well-learnt on the topic I just wanted to raise the issue. I've inserted a small number of sources to the introduction and have added an additional sentence which, I feel and hope, flows decently within the intro (please review it if you wish).

Kind regards,

--&レア (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Taught in Engineering Departments?

There is a long-standing claim that astrophysics is taught in engineering departments. Three sources were recently added to support this claim.

After checking all three sources I find that the closest they come to discussing engineering is to indicate that some engineering coursework may be taken as part of a degree program (or minor) in astronomy, astrophysics, or interdisciplinary studies or that astrophysics is part of the general development of education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Since these sources do not support the claim made, I intend to delete the claim and the sources shortly. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the claim discussed above. Sorry I missed an edit description :( SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Was Carl Sagan an astrophysicist?

A recent edit added a section listing prominent astrophysicists, among them Carl Sagan. I deleted Sagan's name since he is a noted planetary astronomer, not an astrophysicist.

Since my edit was reverted I took a quick check of the title's of Sagan's 645 publications listed in the NASA ADS. Starting with his oldest listed publication, The Production of Organic Molecules in Planetary Atmospheres, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 65, (1960) p. 499, Sagan's scientific work has focused on planetary astronomy; I saw no scientific papers on astrophysics. Lacking evidence that Sagan was an astrophysicist I intend to delete his name again. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check his article at Carl Sagan#Education and scientific career before you blunder and change the status quo of this article a second time. Joys and Happy Holidays to you and yours! – Paine Ellsworth  07:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is just weird. I'm not sure what status quo is, since I went back six months and did not find Sagan's name in the article. Now it seems that it is not only you, SteveMcCluskey, who does not think that Sagan was a respected astrophysicist – Tetra quark just reverted my reversion with the edit summary, "There is no edit war. I just undid his revision once on a mistake. His revision is ok." His revision is not okay. Even if we separate the man from the PhD (the one in astrophysics he achieved in 1960), Sagan was both notable and respected, and an astrophysicist. So I don't understand why his name should be removed from that article section. Please explain it to me as if I were a six-year-old. – Paine Ellsworth  23:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you've made me dig a little deeper. First, Sagan's dissertation was granted by the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago but that doesn't really resolve the question of whether it's a dissertation on astronomy, astrophysics, or both. It's title, however, "Physical Studies of Planets" clearly points in the direction of planetary astronomy, rather than astrophysics (which focuses on the nature of the stars and bodies beyond the solar system). Confirming that reading of the title is David Morrison's biographical note on Sagan published by the National Academy of Sciences: "Sagan continued at Chicago for graduate work, receiving his doctorate in astronomy in 1960 with Gerard P. Kuiper as advisor." By the time Sagan was his student, Kuiper's work was focusing on solar system astronomy. In sum, Sagan wrote a dissertation on planetary astronomy with an advisor who was working in the same field; his training was clearly that of a planetary astronomer, not of an astrophysicist.

Turning to his later research, I went beyond my subjective reading of the titles of his papers to see where he published them. He published 106 papers in Icarus, a leading journal of solar system studies; 18 in the Astronomical Journal, and 19 in the Astrophysical Journal. His publications in Astrophysical Journal mainly concern aspects of his work on planetary astronomy.

In sum, Sagan is a significant astronomer, but he does not represent the mainstream of astrophysics and thus shouldn't appear in this article as an exemplar of what astrophysics is about. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So then, you seem to be saying that these two articles do not give the correct information to readers? There is nothing in this article that restricts astrophysics' focus to the nature of the stars and bodies beyond the solar system. The first section of Sagan's article tells us that he received his PhD in astronomy and astrophysics in 1960. Whether or not the focus of his articles was "planetary astronomy" is not the point. The point is that everything he wrote was from the perspective of a trained astronomer and astrophysicist. So your text above appears to fail to explain why Sagan cannot be considered a respected and notable astrophysicist. Even his studies of planetary astronomy such as Venus included details that went beyond astronomy into the areas of chemistry and physics. Only his detractors (and he had many for whatever reasons) would try to squelch his accomplishments in the physical studies of the universe. What exactly is it about Carl Sagan's major gifts to humanity that you don't like? – Paine Ellsworth  14:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the articles you mention do mislead the reader, but then Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source.

As to the two articles you cite, the Carl Sagan article's description that Sagan has a degree in astronomy and astrophysics has been around since this unsourced edit ten years ago. The sources presently cited describe his degree as in "astronomy and astrophysics" but with no further detail. The source I cite above describes it as a "doctorate in astronomy" from Chicago's Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics. I would let the title of Sagan's dissertation speak for itself.

My central concern, however, is not with Sagan but with this article, which has long presented a confusing view of astrophysics. Until recent edits, it included everything in which physics was applied to astronomy, including such elements as Newtonian planetary dynamics. This is historically unrealistic, as astrophysics emerged in the late nineteenth century with the use of spectroscopic methods to understand the physical nature of the stars and interstellar media. Personally, I have on my to do list a rewrite of the article to clarify the scope of astrophysics, but I haven't seen any sources that concisely define its scope. The best sources I have seen are the contents of astrophysics textbooks and online syllabi of courses. A few (far too long) examples follow:

• Bradley W. Carroll and Dale A. Ostlie, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics (2nd Edition) Addison Wesley, 2006: The Tools of Astronomy: The Celestial Sphere, Celestial Mechanics, The Continuous Spectrum of Light, The Theory of Special Relativity, The Interaction of Light and Matter, Telescopes; The Nature of Stars: Binary Systems and Stellar Parameters, The Classification of Stellar Spectra, Stellar Atmospheres, The Interiors of Stars, The Sun, The Process of Star Formation, Post-Main-Sequence Stellar Evolution, Stellar Pulsation, Supernovae, The Degenerate Remnants of Stars, Black Holes, Close Binary Star Systems; Planetary Systems: Physical Processes in the Solar System, The Terrestrial Planets, The Jovian Worlds, Minor Bodies of the Solar System, The Formation of Planetary Systems; Galaxies and the Universe: The Milky Way Galaxy, The Nature of Galaxies, Galactic Evolution, The Structure of the Universe, Active Galaxies, Cosmology, The Early Universe; Astronomical and Physical Constants, Unit Conversions Between SI and cgs, Solar System Data, The Constellations, The Brightest Stars, The Nearest Stars, Stellar Data, The Messier Catalog.

• Lang, Kenneth R. Essential Astrophysics Springer, 2012: Preface.- Observing the Universe.- Radiation.- Gravity.- Cosmic Motion.- Moving Particles.- Detecting Atoms in Stars.- Transmutation of the Elements.- What Makes the Sun Shine?.- The Extended Solar Atmosphere.- The Sun Amongst the Stars.- The Material Between the Stars.- Formation of the Stars and their Planets.- Stellar End States.- A Larger, Expanding Universe.- Origin, Life and Destiny of the Observable Universe.

• Prof. Paul Schechter, Course at MIT, Modern Astrophysics (Spring 2006): Description: This course explores the applications of physics (Newtonian, statistical, and quantum mechanics) to fundamental processes that occur in celestial objects. The list of topics includes Main-sequence Stars, Collapsed Stars (White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars, and Black Holes), Pulsars, Supernovae, the Interstellar Medium, Galaxies, and as time permits, Active Galaxies, Quasars, and Cosmology. Observational data is also discussed.

My point is that discussions of the planets either do not appear at all or play a very minor role in astrophysics courses, while they play a major role in Sagan's studies, from his PhD dissertation to the end of his life. Sagan does occasionally draw on the findings of astrophysics, as when he said we're all made of star stuff, but astrophysics, as defined above, does not play a sufficiently significant role in his work to call him an astrophysicst. Inclusion of the planetary astronomer Sagan in a discussion of prominent astrophysicists further confuses the focus of this, presently ill-focused, article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the planetary astronomer Sagan in a discussion of prominent astrophysicists further confuses the focus of this, presently ill-focused, article.

No, sorry, you have not made this case. Since I'm not an astrophysicist, I cannot speak to how ill-focused is this article. However, inclusion of Carl Sagan in any discussion of (quoting this article) "respected" and "notable" astrophysicists, if anything, monumentally adds to and improves this article beyond words! Sagan received his bachelors degree in physics. He received his masters degree in physics. Then he received his doctorate in astronomy and astrophysics. This says to me that everything he did, everything he studied and all that he wrote after that must have been colored with his training in both astronomy and astrophysics. It is unconcionable that you or anybody else could possibly think otherwise with or without ulterior motive. You seem to be judging him as a scientist by today's standards of what it is now to be an astrophysicist. In reality, Sagan was a pioneer who helped shaped astrophysics and bring it to what it is today, and you have not shown otherwise. His name belongs here. – Paine Ellsworth  18:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, we'll continue to work to improve the article's discussion of astrophysics. If you can provide sources documenting how Sagan contributed to astrophysics, please do so. I will continue to challenge unsourced material in this article. It seems to me that we've both said about all we have to say about Sagan and astrophysics. I welcome others to add their two cents worth to this discussion. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Carl Sagan be included as a prominent, notable and respected astrophysicist?

Carl Sagan was recently removed from the "Notable astrophysicists" section of this article. Since it is difficult to determine exactly what is "status quo", Sagan's name has not been returned to the article. Should Sagan be returned to that section or should his name continue to be omitted based upon the above discussion? – Paine Ellsworth  17:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to raise two points in addition to my discussions above:

• First, to the extent that Sagan's education is at issue, his dissertation provides contradictory indications. On the Title Page (and the corresponding University form) it says it was submitted to the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics. On Page ii it is described as "submitted in partial fulfillment of the require­ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Astron­omy, University of Chicago, June, 1960." I would take the title page and the form as reflecting the administrative organization of the University rather than Sagan's academic interests; he was an astronomer not an astrophysics.
• Secondly, at the time he wrote his dissertation, Planetary Studies were emerging as a new discipline. One of the contributing areas was the work of Sagan and his dissertation director, Gerard Kuiper, on Physical Studies of Planets. Kuiper at that time was President of the International Astronomical Union's Commission on "Physical Study of Planets and Satellites".

The underlying question here is the relationship between planetary astronomy and astrophysics. If planetary astronomy fits within the framework of astrophysics, then Sagan is an astrophysicist and should be included in a list of notable astrophysicists. If, however, planetary astronomy is a separate discipline distinct from astrophysics, the inclusion of Sagan would confuse the focus of the article and he should not be included.

Input from editors with expertise in astrophysics and its historical development may shed some light on this issue. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nom. If Sagan was an astronomer who was involved in "physical studies of planets and satellites", then isn't he more than a planetary astronomer? Doesn't "physical studies" show that his planetary studies must have also involved his background in physics? (bachelors in physics, masters in physics, PhD in astronomy and astrophysics) Sagan saw everything through the eyes of a trained astronomer and physicist; therefore he should continue to be included along with Professor Stephen Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson as a respected and prominent astronomer and physicist in the "Notable astrophysicists" section of this article. – Paine Ellsworth  23:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The argument supporting Sagan's inclusion seems to be that Sagan studied physics and Sagan applied his physical knowledge to astronomy; therefore Sagan was an astrophysicist. This argument fails on several grounds.

• First, almost all astronomers have extensive training in physics and much of their research employs physical principles, but not all astronomers are astrophysicsts.
• Second, including astronomers who applied physics to the study of the heavens could (and until recent edits did) lead to the inappropriate inclusion in this article of people like Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and many others who used physical principles to understand celestial bodies.
• Third, it ignores the particular focus and historical development of the discipline of astrophysics—which is really what this article should be about.

Lacking substantial evidence regarding Sagan's work in astrophysics and/or his active participation in the astrophysical community, I oppose his inclusion in a section on prominent astrophysicists. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Misplaced Pages does not rely on what editors think, WP relies on Reliable Sources WP:RS, that may include his body of work but isnt exclusive to that. Adding or removing a name from a list, if the action disagrees with reliable sources is Original Research WP:OR. The question should be, is Carl Sagan listed as a notable astrophysicist in reliable sources? A quick search leads me to believe that in reliable sources, he is. That he may have gone into other areas is besides the point. AlbinoFerret 04:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Sagan (unlike Galileo, Newton and Kepler) made significant contributions to astrophysics as defined in the first sentence of the article. Maproom (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support & Comment. As others, most recently AlbinoFerret, pointed out, That he may have gone into other areas is beside the point. My degree was in entomology. I spent nearly my whole professional career in various roles as a computer consultant. In some contexts I describe myself as a biologist,in some as an entomologist, in some as a consultant in any of several aspects of computer work. In all I have encountered various levels of assessment ranging from approbation to opprobrium; what I have not encountered is any client or colleague saying: "Ah, but you are not REALLY a..." whatever the discipline in question happened to be. And yet, neither I, nor any other practitioner in any of those fields could claim to be fully competent in every aspect of the field. IOW it is useful to define a competent practitioner inclusively in terms of his skills and activities, but to define him exclusively as falling outside a given professional category requires some type of formal, generally statutory, standard, such as we can say that though I have certain (admittedly limited and informal) medically significant skills, some of which are unusual among medical doctors, I emphatically am not a medical doctor; this can be demonstrated in any first-world country by showing (correctly) that I have never (and never will have) appeared on any medical register. At the same time many such a medical register will include professionals that are suitably qualified, but never do any direct medical practice, but are administrators, technicians, lab workers and the like. They might thoroughly validly be called medical doctors, but don't try phoning them for a medical emergency at midnight! (Personal experience, trying to find an honest to goodness doctor in a strange city by working through the medical pages in the directory.) Now, this Sagan-exclusion thing not only is nit-picking, it is nit-inventing. Some participants in the discussion are trying to invent, or quote inventors of, a discipline they call astrophysics. More health to them, but their only basis is the convenience of certain authors and tertiary courses, and not even internally consistent, let alone mutually consistent sources at that. To try to limit "astrophysics" to what goes on in stars makes about as much sense as trying to limit "astronomy" to the naming of stars ("astro-" plus "-nomy", right?) not studying anything that happens inside stars, which would include two extra (and mutually exclusive) disciplines, astrophysics and astrochemistry, and certainly not anything to do with what happens between stars such as between binary pulsars or (Horrors!) planets orbiting stars. I am sure you can see where this gets you. 1: Lets not waste everybody's time niggling. 2: If you want to eliminate Sagan from the ranks of astrophysicists, you need to do better than point out that he did more of work other than the narrowly- and arbitrarily-defined astrophysics of a few textbooks and university prospectuses. 3: If you wish to argue that he was not notable, enjoy, but it will take some special pleading. JonRichfield (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• SNOW support Sagan's credentials in the area of astrophysics, and especially his relevance to popularizing topics within it, are about as well-attested as you're going to get, but that being said, aside from AlbinoFerret's comments, most everyone (well reasoned as their arguments have generally been) has been missing the point as regards the factors that influence a content-policy decision here; as AF states it's not how we regard him but how the sources do, and multiple sources do indeed reference him as an expert in the field in question. Snow talk 16:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per AlbinoFerret and Snow. The article should reflect what reliable sources say, not what editors think, and reliable sources appear to say that he was an astrophysicist. Ca2james (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes Carl Sagan was a notable Astrophysicist. My only concern is whether we should even have the List of Notable Astrophysicist as a subsection of this article. Is there a guideline on such things? I propose that we work the names into the prose of the article and delete the section. Anyone interested in a draft?--Adam in MO Talk 21:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Good point. I agree that discussion of the nature of individuals' contributions to astrophysics should best be included within the body of the article (perhaps in the history section) rather than having a separate list in the article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• It does sound like a good idea to integrate the names of notable astrophysicists into other sections of the article. The three mentioned before this RfC, Professor Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan were in the article both because they are prominent and to be representative examples of "Several astrophysicists (who) have become prominently well known culturally for modern science education." It wouldn't hurt the article if those three and other notable astronomers who are also physicists were to be summarized throughout the article. Until that can be done in an encyclopedic manner, it would still be a good idea to reinsert Sagan's name back into the section from where it was extracted. – Paine Ellsworth 06:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think this would be the best way to go. I'll leave it to those who are experts in this area to take care of the execution. I don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves.--Adam in MO Talk 15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose/Comment As an article on a scientific topic, name-dropping of practitioners should be done sparingly and mainly in the history section. The history section could use a brief precis about black holes and condensed-matter stars, in which Schwartzchild and Hawking would be due mentions. While Sagan and Tyson are astrophysicists and are notable, they are not notable as astrophysicists. They get their due at Popular science. Rhoark (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class physics articles
• Top-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of Top-importance
• C-Class Astronomy articles
• High-importance Astronomy articles
• C-Class Astronomy articles of High-importance