There is on average one planet orbiting every star in the Universe. Our Galaxy (the Milky Way) is an immense disk of gas and stars with a diameter of about 100 000 light years, hosting about 100 billion stars and, therefore, also about 100 billion planets. Take a deep breath. Now, it turns out the Milky Way is just one of 100 billion galaxies that populate our Universe, a colossal expanding stretch of spacetime with an age of 13.7 billion years. The math is trivial: There are about 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 10²² planets out there. This number is extremely large. Apparently larger than the number of grains of sand found in every beach and every desert on Earth. But how many of these planets host life? And in particular, how many planets host intelligent life we might be able to communicate with? RSVP and join us for our second official NEW YORK OPEN SCIENCE MEETUP. Check this blog post series if you wanna know more. This event is supported by Authorea.com, Minds.com and the Bitcoin Center NYC.

_This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here by permission of the AAAS for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Science on Vol. 350 no. 6259 pp. 423-426 , DOI: 10.1126/science.aac6933_ Internal stellar magnetic fields are inaccessible to direct observations and little is known about their amplitude, geometry and evolution. We demonstrate that strong magnetic fields in the cores of red giant stars can be identified with asteroseismology. The fields can manifest themselves via depressed dipole stellar oscillation modes, which arises from a magnetic greenhouse effect that scatters and traps oscillation mode energy within the core of the star. The _Kepler_ satellite has observed a few dozen red giants with depressed dipole modes which we interpret as stars with strongly magnetized cores. We find field strengths larger than $\sim\! 10^5 \,{\rm G}$ may produce the observed depression, and in one case we infer a minimum core field strength of $\approx \! \! 10^7 \,{\rm G}$.

PREVIOUS “A “MODERN SCIENTIST” MANIFESTO” In the 21st century science is growing more technical and complex, as we gaze further and further while standing on the shoulders of many generations of giants. The public has often a hard time understanding research and its relevance to society. One of the reasons for this is that scientists do not spend enough time communicating their findings outside their own scientific community. Obviously there are some exceptions, but THE RULE IS THAT SCIENTISTS WRITE CONTENT FOR SCIENTISTS. Academia is often perceived as an ivory tower, and when new findings are shared with the outside world, this is not done by scientists, but by the media or even the political class. The problem is that these external agents do not have the necessary background to digest and properly communicate this knowledge with the rest of society. They often misunderstand, over-hype and in some case even distort the results and views of the scientific community. IT’S IRONIC AND SOMEWHAT FRIGHTENING THAT THE DISCOVERIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHICH SOCIETY INVESTS SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC AND HUMAN CAPITAL, ARE NOT DIRECTLY DISSEMINATED BY THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY UNDERSTAND THEM. At the same time transparency and reproducibility are at stake in the increasingly complex world of research, which is still using old-fashioned tools when packaging and sharing content. This is not only a big problem for research itself, but can give science a bad name in front of the public opinion, which increasingly does not understand and trust the work of scientists. To the average tax-payer science is often cryptic, with most recently published papers behind a pay-wall and the majority of research virtually inscrutable. In this scenario it is hard for the public to access and capture the relevance of scientists’ work. I strongly believe that a society that does not trust its scientists is set on a dangerous course. ACTION ITEMS. To improve the situation 21st century scientists need to: 1. Learn to efficiently share and communicate their research with the public at large. 2. Make their research more transparent and reproducible, so that it can be trusted and better understood by their peers and the public at large. 21st century scientists need to produce “PUBLIC-FRIENDLY OPEN SCIENCE” (PFOS).

_Check here for the full article and layman summaries in different languages._

Dear Dr. Berlinsky, Please consider our application for a 1 week visit following the KITP program “Galactic Archaeology and Precision Stellar Astrophysics”. The proposing team wants to meet again to continue some very exciting work that was started at KITP and led to groundbreaking results in the field of stellar physics and asteroseismology. Please find below a brief description of the results that the team achieved during/after the KITP program and the follow up work we intend to perform while together at KITP. A team justification closes this application. We would like to meet at KITP either on 15-22 NOVEMBER (strong preference for this week) or 6-13 December. INTRODUCTION The team members enjoyed a very productive period of collaboration during the Galactic Archaeology and Precision Stellar Astrophysics program at KITP in 2015. That collaboration led to two papers on red giant asteroseismology, recently submitted to Science and Nature. The first paper discussed the ability to measure internal magnetic fields in red giant stars using asteroseismology, and the second used this technique to constrain/measure magnetic fields in the core of thousands of red giant stars. We believe this work has paved the way to a new sub-field of stellar astrophysics that is ripe for additional study. Consequently, there are several research topics which we wish to pursue during a follow-up visit to KITP. PROJECT OVERVIEW The first research topic we intend to investigate is the EXISTENCE OF STRONG MAGNETIC FIELDS WITHIN STARS ON THE RED CLUMP. The previous works only analyzed stars ascending the red giant branch, but similar physics will occur for red clump stars burning helium in their cores. However, identifying the asteroseismic signature of strong magnetic fields in clump stars is slightly more difficult because they are difficult to distinguish from ascending red giants. Collaboration between the team members will allow us to work out the details of this process from the observational end, and what can be learned from these observations on the theoretical end. A second topic of investigation are “DROOPY-LIKE” STARS that show a particular asteroseismic signature that allows for a more precise measurement of their internal magnetic fields. Thus far, only one star KIC 8561221 (“Droopy”) that shows this signature has been analyzed in detail (Garcia et al. 2014). However, more Droopy-like stars likely exist. We intend to identify these stars in the data, measure their internal magnetic field strengths, and use them to trace the evolution of internal magnetic field strengths in red giant stars. Third, we hope to use additional time at KITP to examine the OCCURRENCE OF MAGNETIC FIELDS IN CLUSTER STARS. These stars have nearly identical ages and compositions and provide the perfect testbed to understand evolution of magnetic fields in a uniform population of stars. Red giant cluster stars exist in both Kepler data and recent and upcoming K2 fields, with substantial data already secured by the team. These red giants are found in several clusters (of differing ages and metallicities) and can be used to understand the development of magnetic fields in different populations of stars. As a fourth research topic (time permitting) we will try to CONSTRAIN THE GEOMETRY OF INTERNAL MAGNETIC FIELDS in red giants with suppressed dipoles, using the scattering properties of dipolar gravity waves on the magnetic fields. Proposing Team and Team Justification 1. Lars Bildsten (KITP resident) 2. Matteo Cantiello (KITP resident) 3. Jim Fuller (Caltech) 4. Rafael A. Garcia (CEA, Paris) 5. Stéphane Mathis (CEA, Paris) 6. Dennis Stello (Sydney University) Five of the six team members outlined above are the main authors in the two papers submitted to Science (Theory) and Nature (Observations). Thanks to their complementary expertises, this group of scientists found a remarkable synergy while at KITP. Thanks to the presence of both theorists and observers, we were able to quickly identify an observational puzzle, find a theoretical explanation and test it on brand new data. In the process this led to the discovery of a novel, powerful way to look for magnetic fields in stellar interiors. The team has remained in touch and active after meeting at KITP, but it’s clear that only re-creating a full-immersion atmosphere can lead to rapid progress on the follow-up research program.

THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN Science is going through a rapid phase of transformation. Two important trends are emerging: 1. Research is becoming more complex, requiring larger collaborations and bigger experiments. 2. Science and technology increasingly affect modern society. The first trend is easy to understand. Let’s think of the cumulative knowledge of humankind as a sphere. Scientists work at the surface and try to “push the boundary”. Discovery increases the volume of knowledge. As the sphere’s volume grows, so does its surface area. Therefore an ever increasing number of researchers is required to tessellate the expanding cutting-edge of science. Moreover, contrary to a few hundred years ago when the sphere of knowledge was so small that a single polymath could master large chunks of it, nowadays no human can understand the details of more than a few research topics. To capture the bigger picture and understand very complex research questions, collaborative efforts combining together a number of highly specific expertises are required.

The KITP invites collaborating researchers who were participants of selected recent programs to apply to visit, in order to pursue work initiated during their prior KITP visits. The goal is to enhance those collaborative efforts initiated at a KITP program that would clearly benefit from a brief, focused return to the KITP. Groups of 2-6 members with established collaborations arising from the following programs may apply to visit for 1 or 2 weeks during the period October 26-December 18, 2015: - Magnetism, Bad Metals and Superconductivity: Iron Pnictides and Beyond - Galactic Archaeology and Precision Stellar Astrophysics - Dynamics and Evolution of Earth-like Planets - Quantum Gravity Foundations: UV to IR Proposals should be short, consisting of 1-2 pages justifying the group of researchers who will participate, explaining the science and objectives that the group will pursue during the visit, and explicitly stating the preferred dates when the group can come. Visits must be for one or two complete weeks, with all applicants in residence at the same time. Applying to the program consists of two steps: 1. One collaborator must submit the group’s proposal at Form. 2. Each member of the proposed group must also fill out a brief online application at Activities. All application materials must be received by July 5, 2015. Invitations will be issued by July 17, 2015. For those invited to participate, KITP will reserve and directly pay for housing at West Cottages and provide office space in Kohn Hall during the visits. Visitors will be fully responsible for travel, meals and any other expenses.

Friday June 26, 2016. Today is a great day for human rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. This decision reflects a shift in American public opinion: according to recent polls, 60% of Americans now support same-sex marriage. As a company devoted to promoting openness and collaboration, Authorea feels strongly this is an important step in the right direction. Obviously, sharing the ups and downs of life with another person is an immensely more important and complex task than writing a collaborative paper. Yet if we can draw a parallel, we might say that a useful measure of the progress of a society, and humankind in general, is its ability to share and care openly, together. That’s the way to unlock society’s true potential, and foster creativity and love. Happy writing. Happy loving. Authorea

NEW YORK – Last June, a dedicated global team of Ebola researchers began an ambitious project to track the virus using large-scale genome sequencing. Their research, which was written on the research platform Authorea and published June 18 in the journal Cell , reveals critical information about how the virus traveled and mutated over seven months of the recent Ebola outbreak. Today Authorea is pleased to announce that the working draft, data, workflows, and full edit history of the paper are available to the public for free on Authorea. This is the first time that such complete details have ever been released for a scientific paper. This release provides unprecedented transparency and detail, empowering students and researchers to review every change and edit to every word during the writing of this landmark research paper, using Authorea’s “History” feature. “When we planned this study, our team decided to make our work as open and transparent as possible, and writing the paper on Authorea is part of that,” said co-lead author Daniel Park. “We felt a moral imperative to put everything out there, especially in this kind of emergency situation.” “Authorea was founded to make researchers’ day-to-day tasks easier,” says Authorea co-founder and Harvard Research Associate Alberto Pepe. “We realized we were wasting time emailing around documents and data. So we built a website where everyone could write and edit in the same place.” But Authorea also supports a bigger goal: making science more open. The platform is free to use for open research. “We encourage scientists to publish their entire research process: writing, data, and discussion,” said Dr. Pepe. “The default stance is often to be closed, and we encourage more openness and transparency.” Researchers in life sciences and other fields often withhold their raw data for months before and even after publishing, according to recent surveys. This practice has questionable utility, as it slows the pace of research, makes it less reproducible, and erodes public trust in science. “Open access saves lives,” said Professor Peter Suber from the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and the Harvard Open Access Project, which were not involved with the Cell Ebola study. “Research saves lives, and when access is unaffordable or delayed, the access barriers put lives at risk. This is especially true in a crisis like Ebola where time is of the essence.”

This collaborative document has been created for the panel discussion on “Rotation in massive stars” (FOE 2015). All conference participants have been added to the document and can edit / comment / add figures (just drag&drop) / references and even LaTeX equations if needed (check the help page for more infos on how to edit the document). Hopefully this will capture the essential ideas and interactions that will stem during and after the discussion. The document can be forked at any time, so that particular discussions can be taken further and potentially lead to active collaborations.

Recent asteroseismic analyses have revealed the presence of strong (B≳10⁵ G) magnetic fields in the cores of many red giant stars. Here, we examine the implications of these results for the evolution of stellar magnetic fields, and we make predictions for future observations. Those stars with suppressed dipole modes indicative of strong core fields should exhibit moderate but detectable quadrupole mode suppression. The long magnetic diffusion times within stellar cores ensure that dynamo-generated fields are confined to mass coordinates within the main sequence convective core, and the sharp increase in dipole mode suppression rates above 1.5 M⊙ may be explained by the larger convective core masses and faster rotation of these more massive stars. In clump stars, core fields of $\sim 10^5 \, {\rm G}$ can suppress dipole modes, whose visibility should be equal to or less than the visibility of suppressed modes in ascending red giants. High dipole mode suppression rates in low-mass (M ≲ 2 M⊙) clump stars would indicate that magnetic fields generated during the main sequence can withstand subsequent convective phases and survive into the compact remnant phase. Finally, we discuss implications for observed magnetic fields in white dwarfs and neutron stars, as well as the effects of magnetic fields in various types of pulsating stars.

_This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Nature on 04 January 2016, DOI:10.1038/nature16171_ Magnetic fields play a role in almost all stages of stellar evolution . Most low-mass stars, including the Sun, show surface fields that are generated by dynamo processes in their convective envelopes . Intermediate-mass stars do not have deep convective envelopes , although 10% exhibit strong surface fields that are presumed to be residuals from the stellar formation process . These stars do have convective cores that might produce internal magnetic fields , and these might even survive into later stages of stellar evolution, but information has been limited by our inability to measure the fields below the stellar surface . Here we use asteroseismology to study the occurrence of strong magnetic fields in the cores of low- and intermediate-mass stars. We have measured the strength of dipolar oscillation modes, which can be suppressed by a strong magnetic field in the core , in over 3,600 red giant stars observed by . About 20% of our sample show mode suppression but this fraction is a strong function of mass. Strong core fields only occur in red giants above 1.1 solar masses (1.1), and the occurrence rate is at least 60% for intermediate-mass stars (1.6–2.0), indicating that powerful dynamos were very common in the convective cores of these stars.

Example of an “astronomer friendly” deluxe table formatted with Authorea. This is the example posted by Jess K on astrobetter in How to Make Awesome Latex Tables. For this table we are using the LaTeXML engine, have a look at this quick tutorial if you are a prospective Authorea power LaTeX user. cccccccc 1/3 Bright & & 4.24 ⋅ 10−4 & 6.19 && 96.97 & & & [0.3,3] & & & 1.77 & & 96.7 & 1.9σ 2/3 Dim & & 4.26 ⋅ 10−4 & 4.48 & & 52.77

In order to estimate the number of technological civilizations that might exist among the stars, in 1961 Frank Drake proposed a simple equation. Below you can play with an interactive plot showing the number N of communicative civilizations in the Galaxy as function of their average longevity L. You can change the values of the various parameters using the sliders.

In this short post series I try to tackle one of the biggest questions out there: ARE WE ALONE? The reasoning leads to some radical implications for the VERY NEAR FUTURE OF HUMANKIND. Read till the end and feel free to comment as you go. Hopefully this will spark interesting discussions. 1. Habitable Planets How many habitable planets exist in the Universe? 2. The Drake Equation How to estimate the number of technological civilizations in our Galaxy? 3. Astrobiology Is biological life common in the Universe? 4. The Fermi Paradox Is intelligent life common in the Universe? And if yes, does it last? 5. Interactive Drake Equation Use your own intuition to calculate the chance of being alone or not

PREVIOUS “ASTROBIOLOGY” – NEXT “INTERACTIVE DRAKE EQUATION” With an estimated diameter of 93 billion light years and age of 13.7 billion years, our Universe is an astonishingly big place that’s been around for a very long time. When you look up, you only get a short glimpse at a fraction of the hundreds of billions of stars that populate our Galaxy (which in turn is one of hundreds of billions in the cosmos), but it’s enough to make you wonder: “Are we alone?” In the previous post we discussed the likelihood of the emergence of (intelligent) extraterrestrial life. Starting from the famous Drake Equation and using recent findings in astrophysics and some astrobiology arguments, we obtained a simple way to estimate N, the number of communicative civilizations in our Galaxy. This reduces to the product of the chance of emergence of intelligent life fi and the longevity L (in years) of a civilization’s communicative phase: N \approx \, {4}\, f_i \, L \,.

PREVIOUS “DRAKE EQUATION” – NEXT “FERMI PARADOX” We are thinking creatures living on a planet orbiting a pretty common star in a pretty common galaxy. Our home planet has been around for about 4.5 billion years, while the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old. We just learned that there are about 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 10²¹ planets potentially similar to the Earth in the cosmos, a number larger than the amount of grains of sand found on every beach and every desert on Earth. ARE WE ALONE? To answer this question in 1961 scientist Frank Drake formulated his famous equation, which I discussed in the previous post of this series. The Drake equation calculates the number N of communicative civilizations in our Galaxy. In its 2015 form it reads: N ≈ 2 fl fi fc L

This post was written by Matteo Cantiello, a theoretical astrophysicist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics and Authorea’s Chief Scientist. It is intended to be published as a post on Astrobetter.com. I am aware that a while back a lot of astronomers have tried out writing their research articles on Authorea, a web-based collaborative writing platform. Some were disappointed by the lack of certain advanced LaTeX features (e.g., deluxetables, now supported). You were disappointed, you told us why, and we just implemented some big changes to make you happy. Authorea now has a “Power LaTeX user” mode which supports a much much larger subset of LaTeX. Essentially everything. And unlike some services such as ScribTeX and WriteLaTeX (previously reviewed on Astrobetter), all your LaTeX renders both to PDF _and_ to HTML (i.e., the web). So, why should you give Authorea a spin and start using it daily for your research? It’s a good question. Here some highlights that might guide that decision. 1. With Authorea, your paper is accessible from any computer, anywhere in the world. 2. You can write your paper from your browser, no installation of TeX required. 3. You can write in LaTeX or in markdown. Advanced LaTeX and tables are now supported. 4. Collaboration is made easy. No need for endless emails threads with multiple draft revisions. 5. Every Authorea paper is a Git repo, version controlled. Again, no installations required. 6. Want to work offline via Github? You can. Authorea becomes the rendered version so that your coauthors can still work with you without having to learn Git. 7. Adding citations has never been easier. One click and done. Believe me, you will never want to go back. 8. You can include data and code in your paper, like IPython Notebooks. This allows for transparency and reproducibility of results. 9. Export to any journal format with just one click. We support all the usual suspects, from ApJ to AJ, from MNRAS to A&A. Switch back and forth between these styles in one click. 10. Powerful commenting system. For internal or even external review. 11. Authorea has templates to get you started fast with your next Astronomy grant proposal or d3.js paper. 12. Did I say deluxetables? Well, here’s the same deluxetable posted on Astrobetter a while back, as it is rendered on Authorea: https://www.authorea.com/38778_deluxe. Ok, enough with the list of fancy features. Here’s my personal experience as an astrophysicist using Authorea. I switched to writing papers with Authorea about a year ago and I noticed a number of immediate improvements: first of all MY PAPERS GET WRITTEN FASTER. Then I noticed that I have NO NEED TO EXCHANGE EMAILS WITH COLLABORATORS concerning the paper. All the action happens (and it’s logged) on Authorea, including discussions about revisions and suggestions for improvements. This said, I didn’t really expect the most important upturn. By getting rid of the overhead I had previously considered a messy unavoidable part of the scientific writing process, something remarkable happened. I actually STARTED ENJOYING WRITING MORE! And I don’t mean just publishing; I had experienced that joy before. The difference is I now cherish the time I spend putting my science into words. It might sound crazy, but Authorea did something amazing: it made me DISCOVER THE PLEASURE OF WRITING SCIENCE TOGETHER with my collaborators. So if you ask me “Why should I write my next paper with Authorea?” my honest answer is “Because you will love it!”. My suggestion is that you take Authorea for a spin and make up your own mind. The Astronomical community has a lot of experience with early adoption and innovation, so your feedback can help to substantially improve this tool. Do you think Authorea is on the right track? Is there a particular feature missing that would improve substantially your workflow? Share your reviews and suggestions in the comments!