How a Guy Found 4 New Planets Without a Telescope 133
An anonymous reader writes "Peter Jalowiczor is a gas worker from South Yorkshire, England. He's also the discoverer of four giant exoplanets, according to the University of California's Lick-Carnegie Planet Search Team. But he's not an astronomer and he doesn't even have a telescope. '...in 2005, astronomers at the university released millions of space measurements collected over several decades and asked enthusiasts to make of them what they would. ... From March 2007 Peter, 45, spent entire nights reading the data, working the figures, creating graphs. ... He then sent discrepancies he discovered back to the scientists in California where they were further analyzed to see if the quirks were caused by the existence of an exoplanet.'"
Bravo (Score:5, Insightful)
As an amateur astronomer I think the general mindset is that one cannot make a discovery of any significance without owning cutting edge hardware. Telescopes produce such mind-bending quantities of data that there is much opportunity for someone with some patience and an inquiring mind to add to the knowledge-base.
Surely also a brilliant argument of the power of publicly available data.
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for him. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unusual slashdot posting, in that there seems little to ridicule in anything or anyone about the event. Good for him, I'm glad his efforts paid off in these discoveries. I think he distinguished himself in his persistence and ability to keep at it when many others might have seen the effort as futile for so many reasons.
Automation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not "without a telescope". (Score:5, Insightful)
Um no. Typically the guys up in the middle of the night taking a series of long exposures are NOT the multiple PHD astronomers. It's college kids working on their Masters or Phd. Running a telescope is actually quite easy, you do what the Researcher asks, and then deliver the data. It's been this way for a while now. you dont have the old guy spending all night looking through an eyepiece with the guide motor controller in hand. In fact a friend of mine that works at UofM astronomy was making observations during the daytime by using a scope in Australia and had the data and images sent to him, he then did the processing.
The only telescope that requires rocket scientists to operate it is Hubble.
Re:OMG! He used math! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if you know this, but pretty much all discoveries in the last hundred years have been made with math. Astronomy especially so.
It is pretty clear that you don't understand the fact that there are only so many scientists in the world, and these discoveries require people pouring over data for extended periods of time. Science is not a glorious profession, and it doesn't pay well. That means there aren't that many scientists doing all the works of science. It's not like there are millions of professional astronomers out there - at best there are a few thousand. Any time you can enlist the help the public to go through the tedious analysis tasks you are better off, especially if you happen to snag a guy who has two science degrees under his belt. Just because he doesn't do science for a living doesn't mean he wasn't trained as a scientist.
I'm honestly quite flabbergasted by your attitude. If Einstein were an astronomer instead of a theoretical physicist, how exactly would you expect him to discover new planets with just pencils, paper, and a waste basket?
Re:Hey, uh...while I have your ear... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
You may find this link useful.
Einstein and other stuff. (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, that's ok. I am flabbergasted by *your* attitude that a theoretical physics is not part of astronomy. After all, Einstein had nothing to do with astronomy. (roll eyes for sarcastic effect) Einstein's theories on relativity, alone, have altered astronomy and cosmology profoundly.
By the way, I am a scientist/engineer who is very aware is "only so many scientists in the world". I am also acutely aware of how broken the research system is and how myopic researchers can be when looking for new things. Careful evaluation and trying to put the pieces together just doesn't get the grant money.
Sure, science is not a glorious profession, but within the science realm certain activities are more glorious than others. It's hard to piece things together and it's far too easy to simply look at new things all of the time---especially if it makes a pretty grant application.
There are so many things to discuss about this. I just want to extend kudos to Peter Jalowiczor for his discoveries. I also want to extend contempt for the researchers for sitting on their data for years on end.
As an aside...
I really believe that all government funded research should require that the data be published in a timely fashion (i.e. they are put in a repository that automatically gives everyone access xx weeks after it is collected).