Slashdot Mirror
How a Guy Found 4 New Planets Without a Telescope
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.'"
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.
I just look up and point myself
... there was a telescope, just not one he owned....
After months of going over hard data, I've discovered a first post!
nicely done! that is some dedication... i usually spend my spare time on nothing of scientific interest.
He's been using "other people's telescopes" so to speak.
This is nothing new -- in fact, most astronomers work just like him - they use observations made by their colleagues.
The astronomers who actually do observations are fewer than the people who do astronomy, mostly because observing requires a whole lot of skills on top of astronomy knowledge.
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.
This guy is clearly a gas giant rather than everyday normal gas worker.
It says that he 'read data' and 'created graphs'. Couldn't whatever he was doing be automated? I'm sure that astronomers are already automating a whole lot of data analyzation, but for a random guy to find 4 irregularities, seems strange. Maybe high level pattern recognition is vital to the process he used? Get this guy, or somebody to start writing code.
No, if you lose your key, then take pictures of all the places where you might have lost it and someone else looks through the pictures and sees the key, then you did not find the key. That other person did. He couldn't have done it without the provided data, but don't diminish his work like that.
They should put the data up on [[http://boinc.berkeley.edu|BOINC]].
Bravo to the guy for doing it long-hand.
You're not allowed to talk anymore.
That's boring.
Now if you don't mind, take out your wallet. We're collecting taxes so we can build a giant thing that smashes atoms together.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Surely you most be joking Dr. Feynman. Thanks, I'll pass, but think about working for our Bite-Me academy . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Hi, it looks like you've been spending a lot of time on a wiki. Might I suggest some Jimbo.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
By this logic *I* found it that other day when I looked up in the sky to see what phase the moon was in. "Find" should properly mean "identify" which the guy certainly did to a degree, although arguably the folks he sent his data back to might deserve some credit as well for their input.
Actually if you want to see a planet you should really be looking down, not up.
Except, I'm too lame.
Whenever I read stories like this, I think, damn, that could have been me; me, the "discoverer of planents". I always think that the layman can't make discoveries anymore now that making discoveries requires multi-million-dollars worth of gear or an intellect that's way over my head.
But it just isn't true.
This could, in fact, have been me ... DAMMIT, again.
Kudos to original discoverer.
so.... did they ask him the exact steps he used, automate the process, and are they looking for ways to improve on it? Probably not. He wasn't an academic or a child, so his findings will be written off as a fluke. His process couldn't possibly be innovative and his thoughts on astronomy and data-mining couldn't be of any value. After all, he doesn't have the proper credentials.
In 5 or 6 years, someone in an academic program will write a paper about their "discovery" of a "new" way to find exo-planets buried in the existing data, and we'll all be expected to hold their "work" in awe. meh.
In a recent development the CERN board of Directors have decided to lend Peter a 15 PB (1 petabyte = 1 million GB) RAID array that he can hook up to his home computer. This will allow him to work with the first year's worth of LHC (Large Hadeon Collider) data. They have high hopes that he will find evidence for the Higgs particle which they belive is buried in the data. If he find the Higgs within 24 months he will get to keep the RAID array and they will keep the Nobel Prize that will surely be awarded for this great discovery. After all it is their data, isn't it?
I'm guessing "Gas worker" is short for "Chemical Engineer.".
...please don't annihilate the fucking world.
Thanks.
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?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
If you read the article you'll find that he couldn't have found those planets with a telescope even if he had one. Even the best optics available on earth would be useless for finding those planets.
That said, he did good work in finding the data for those planets in the sets he analyzed. And indeed he didn't use a telescope; but he couldn't have found them with a conventional (optical) telescope anyways.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The man's work is impresive, but what sorely stuck out is a lack of programmers who could have saved that man time, figuring out how to digitize and analyze their telescopes' raw data.
How about they get the SETI clusters crunching it? Or at the very least the scientists can recruit Anonymous (who's been bored & out of "black-faxing work" since the holidays) in exchange for a some hot science-lady pics.
Uh, the astronomers can't work on everything. This guy worked on the data they did not have time to look at.
...and it even has a pivot table (I just turn it sideways).
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
I would disagree very strongly with your statement. Whilst many discoveries can be described with maths very few apart from in the realms of physics emerge purely from the exploration of math. Now granted math is a tool used to expose data in some way but very few discoveries emerge from the math itself.
For example: A biologist notes that certain frog populations are responding to variations in the chemical makeup of the water in which they live. Statistics may be used to validate and explore the observation but in no way could the discovery of the frogs response to chaging environmental conditions have "emerged" from the math.
In fact I would go further - discoveries emergeing purely as a consequence of math are very very few indeed.
That he's single and doesn't get out much ;)
And how did the biologist count the frogs? I've never seen a frog fill out a census form.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Whats the waste basket for?
and what kind of data is it? Is it images or position coordinates for stars?
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
I saw the man looking at the planet with a telescope.
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).
Kathryn Gray, a 10 year old girl from New Brunswick, Canada, discovered a previously unknown SuperNova over the Christmas holidays. Neither Kathryn nor her dad own a telescope. They used images downloaded to her dad's computer, an astronomy buff. The images were taken via a backyard telescope owned by another amateur, David Lane of Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada).
Zooniverse has recently launched a new project using data from Kepler. You can create a profile at Planet Hunters and look for planet transits. IMO it's the most exciting project they've launched. Sure you're not naming the planets, but you are aiding the search.
"and these discoveries require people pouring over data for extended periods of time."
Well, only if the data is from the Big Dipper.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
This sounds like yet another one of those light on details, feel good story the news media feel compel to push out from time to time.
"Working the figures"...didn't they invented some kind of computers to do that?
He just noted that the frogs were everywhere - you only need to count them for statistics.
You see, Frankie Jr., THIS is why you learns your maths. So that when you're just some guy working to put a roof over your family's heads, yous can look at some numbers, do some additions, and be immortalized in the fucking cosmos for just being curious little shit.
Now go do your math homework.
--- Really though... this is why you learn math even if you're not going to be a rocket scientist.
Since he's a polack gasworker he probably couldn't find the oven he's supposed to be repairing either.
And he'd probably want "hendrid pundz" just for turning up too.
He has done quite an achievement, while you are a troll. Sure, be proud of your british arse.
I don't know if you know this, but pretty much all discoveries in the last hundred years have been made with math
Let me guess, you're a mathematician?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Ugh my eyes, capital letters in the middle of word.
"and these discoveries require people pouring over data for extended periods of time."
Well, only if the data is from the Big Dipper.
Or the Little Dipper. There are two, you know.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
I know Paul and he most certainly does own a telescope, but it was not used in this discovery. He and Dave have discovered 3 previous supernovas using images from Dave's Abbey Ridge Observatory (http://www.davelane.ca/aro/) with Paul doing most of the blink comparison work. In this case his daughter was helping him and spotted the supernova on one of the first data sets she tried.