Highlights of March

Uff, that month was a tough one. I wrote my first grant, killed my first mouse, got my third cold of the season, said goodbye to the love of my life for two months, and been so busy that I haven’t been able to keep up with the posts.

In an attempt to get back to regular blogging, I’m going to start a monthly ‘highlights’. It’ll be heavily biased towards my own interests, so no calling foul on things I don’t include.

There were results from the Planck experiment, that measures the cosmic microwave background, which is essentially photons from the early universe that have done nothing since then but travel towards your detector. They get an amazing map of the CMBR [papers] [synopsis].

IceCube, which is a detector made out of ice in Antarctica, also published new data, further reducing the limits for the cross-section of dark-matter candidates WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, because sometimes physicists like naming things). [paper] [synopsis] [preprint]

ATRAP, an antiproton experiment measured the magnetic moment of the antiproton to three orders of magnitude more precision. It’s still consistent with the proton, which is reassuring for the Charge-Parity-Time theorem. [paper] [synopsis]

Nature had interesting sections on both the future of research publishing, and women in science.
For publishing, I’m a big advocate of open-access publishing. I want my research to be available to anyone that can understand it. I’ll write a blog expounding more on this in the future.
I like to think of myself as blind to gender, race, background whatever in my colleagues. But I’m smart enough to know that my subconscious probably isn’t. Particularly hard-hitting for me (being another white boy) was this recent post by MarkCC on Scientopia, where you can have the best of intentions, but still do it wrong. We all have to take care to make sure we’re giving everyone an equal chance.

A weird one is the removal of the paper describing the oldest human fossil from the Journal of Human Evolution, without much in the way of explanation. There are some rumblings that it’s a dispute over something that didn’t get cited, but I’m surprised that that gets a removal. Retraction Watch is following the story.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s