These labs covered the basics of implementing digital circuitry using a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). We reviewed how one builds the program in Quartus and compiles it onto the FPGA. We also reviewed how one can constructs complex circuits very easily in Quartus and show the result using a 7-segment display. This lab was very helpful in providing the necessary building blocks for future projects involving FPGAs as it showed how one can encode the necessary logic to execute a desired task.

PREAMBLE This is an introduction to a series on pushing beyond “The Article”. But where to draw the line? Health economist Christopher Sampson tackles the question head on and makes some fantastic points about the benefits of communicating through alternative channels like blogs and platforms outside of traditional journals. This series is about extending communication even further: outreach, non-traditional dissemination, writing for different audiences, and how to get more eyes on your work without resorting to click-baity titles (full disclosure: title was _almost_ “7 Things You Won’t Believe Increase Your Online Presence and DOUBLE the size of your h-index!”). Simply, these are more ways to extend scientific communication into the 21st century. So, be sure to stick around, follow us (fb, tw, g+) (we’ll also cover social media), and leave comments, questions, and suggestions (we’ll cover interactivity too).

The core rotation rates of massive stars have a substantial impact on the nature of core collapse supernovae and their compact remnants. We demonstrate that internal gravity waves (IGW), excited via envelope convection during a red supergiant phase or during vigorous late time burning phases, can have a significant impact on the rotation rate of the pre-SN core. In typical (10 M⊙ ≲ M ≲ 20 M⊙) supernova progenitors, IGW may substantially spin down the core, leading to iron core rotation periods $(P_{\rm min,Fe} \gtrsim 50 \, {\rm s})$. Angular momentum (AM) conservation during the supernova would entail minimum NS rotation periods of $P_{\rm min,NS} \gtrsim 3 \, {\rm ms}$. In most cases, the combined effects of magnetic torques and IGW AM transport likely lead to substantially longer rotation periods. However, stochastic influxes of AM delivered by IGW during shell burning phases also entail a maximum core rotation period. We estimate maximum iron core rotation periods of $P_{\rm max,Fe} \lesssim 10^4 \, {\rm s}$ in typical core collapse supernova progenitors, and a corresponding spin period of $P_{\rm max, NS} \lesssim 400 \, {\rm ms}$ for newborn neutron stars. This is comparable to the typical birth spin periods of most radio pulsars. Stochastic spin-up via IGW during shell O/Si burning may thus determine the initial rotation rate of most ordinary pulsars. For a given progenitor, this theory predicts a Maxwellian distribution in pre-collapse core rotation frequency that is uncorrelated with the spin of the overlying envelope.

INTRODUCTION - Knowledge transfer is one of the key aspects of understanding the world, as we pass on learnings from one generation to the other. - International development is one of the critical sectors that needs major improvement in the way that we create, share, and apply knowledge. - This is because international development, encapsulates our efforts to improve the basic living conditions and opportunities of marginalized and underserved people around the world.

Use a fancy GIF in your next scholarly paper!

A search for a supersymmetric top decay assuming a 100% branching ratio of $^* \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu ^- b $ is presented using a minimally supersymmetric model at an integrated luminosity of 19.5 fb−1. The datasets were recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC. Using Baysian marginalization, an upper limit on the cross section of this process is computed and a cut off point is calculated below which the data does not support the presence of the target decay. This cut off point was calculated to be around 780 GeV.

GOT FIGURES? You can insert a figure in your article by clicking on the Insert Figure button, or dragging and dropping it anywhere onto the article. The Attach button below the figure lets you add data to your figures: a CSV, TSV, JSON file, an IPython Notebook (image below) or a d3.js interactive graphic (second image below, click on it and play with it!).

WHAT’S ON YOUR MIND? This is an experimental “article”. I’ll periodically drop citations to papers and news I’m reading, I’ve read, or I’m still thinking about. Dropped citations might have comments, links to related articles/writings, or be effectively untouched. At any point, anyone can comment on anything (please do; it’s encouraged). Maybe you have some insights on a paper, a particular concept, or technique. Maybe you disagree with something. Maybe you have more recommended reading. Maybe you just want to say something is “cool”. Any kind of comment is good because it adds information to the thought-process or discussion. As this is a work very much in progress, organizational changes will be made I’m sure, and if anyone has suggestions or wants to build off anything here, go for it. The goal, while not yet entirely clear, is some kind of radical or innovative collaboration.

MLT These notes are mostly inspired from reading Cox & Giuli (“Principles of stellar structure”); some insights are from A.Maeder (“Physics, formation and evolution of rotating stars”) and Kippenhahn & Weigert (“Stellar Structure and Evolution”) Pressure Scale Height In hydrostatic equilibrium we can define the total pressure scale height, $\hp$, as -{\D r} \equiv {\hp} = {\p} where $\p$ is the total pressure ($ + $). The pressure scale height is a measure of the distance over which the pressure changes by an appreciable fraction of itself.

SEARCH FOR SUSY DECAYS AT $ = 8$ TEV Given the high precision of analysis techniques implemented at the LHC at Cern, there has been increasing opportunity to discover theories beyond the current model of fundamental physics. One such theory for physics “beyond the Standard Model” is known as Supersymmetry and proposes an additional symmetry to be added to space-time, allowing for a family of particles that are an exact duplicate (except for this quantity, labeled R) to those found in the Standard Model. Associated with the extension is a corresponding conservation law in supersymmetric interactions known as ‘R-parity’ . R-parity conserving decays have been in high focus since they provide an explanation for the massive amount of dark energy foundr, estimated to be close to 73% . Since R needs to be conserved, the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP for short) would not be able to decay to any other particle other than itself and would explain the massive amount of seemingly stable dark matter . For this reason, there has been a large effort to look for data that resemble R-parity conserving modes, without much attention towards R-parity violating decays. Over the past two years, I performed an analysis looking for data that resembles a signal that is consistent with a supersymmetric decay. My target process is a supersymmetric top decaying to oppositely charged W-bosons one of which decays to a positive muon and an anti-b quark, and the second decays to a b-quark and negatively charged muon. I chose to look for a particular decay that resembles a standard model interaction with well understood backgrounds because I assumed that the process would behave similarly, except for this additional symmetry which I ignored as part of the analysis. Therefore, I chose a process whose major backgrounds were well modeled using current Monte Carlo methods. One variable that affects the rate at which this occurs is the mass of the supersymmetric top quark . Since this quantity has not be measured, the goal of my research was to to calculate a cutoff mass at which I can say there is enough data to prove/disprove the theory at a mass lower than a certain value. I did this by performing a comparison between the expected numbers if the theory were true to the numbers found in the data sample. Since the probability at which the decay happens decreases as the supersymmetric top mass increase, there should be a point at which the numbers flip from being too high to too low. The point at which this flip occurs is the “cutoff” point where I can say below which the data does not have enough events to support the theory. The data came from the latest set published by the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland. At the core of the design is a superconducting solenoid magnet that is 6m in diameter,13m long, and generates a 4T field which is used to determine the charge of the particle. On the outside of the magnet is an electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) which is designed to measure electromagnetic deposits. After the products of the decay have passed through the ECAL, they reach the hadronic calorimeter (HCAL) which absorbs most of the energy left in the collision. The particles that do make it through the HCAL are either neutrinos or muons. The muons are detected and collected in a separate configuration around the magnet composed of a drift tube and cathode-strip detector . The result of this analysis will provide future researchers with a better sense of possible values for the mass of the supersymmetric top and possibly allow for the creation of more specialized detectors that focus on higher mass regions than the calculated cutoff. ADDITIONAL SOURCES MEASUREMENT OF TTBARCITEPLACEHOLDER8ID This paper provides a lot of important background information concerning the major backgrounds for the standard model version of my decay. Since it specifically focuses on ttbar production, it discusses many of the issues that I encountered while performing the analsysis. This paper will be useful in both the backbrgound section to provide appropriate info as well as guide me during my analysis of the data. STOPS AND NEUTRINO MASS HIERARCHY CITEPLACEHOLDER9ID This paper outlines the correlation between supersymmetric top decau paramters and the neutrino mass hierarchy. This paper will prove to be useful during the section dedicated towards future research as it shows a way for this analysis to provide guidance towards research in the future. PREVIOUS SERCHES FOR R-PARITY VIOLATION CITEPLACEHOLDER10ID This paper discusses previous searches for R-parity violation and will be used in my background section to discuss the current state of ressearch in the field. A GENERAL SUMMARY OF SUSY SEARCHES AT LHC CITEPLACEHOLDER11ID Whereas the previous paper discusses more current efforts to search for SUSY, this paper provides an outlook on the field when it was first being discuessed. By looking at the original papers, the original reasons for pursuing particular lines of reseaerch becomes much more clear. This paper will be referenced in my introduction for a description of the field before we knew where to look. DARK MATTER CONSIDERING MSSM CITEPLACEHOLDER12ID This paper will also go in my introduction and provides a link between dark matter and the MSSM model. By providing this sort of information, it is clear that the hole I am filling with my research is not commonly considered due to the attractiveness of other theories, increasing the usefullness of my research. DARK MATTER PRIMER CITEPLACEHOLDER13ID This paper will be referenced in my introduction and provides a different viewpoint on the Dark Matter problem as it stands in modern astro physics. By highlighting this issue I am able to drive home the importance of my research. LSP AS DM CANDIDATE CITEPLACEHOLDER14ID This paper describes the viability of the LSP as a dark matter candidate and will be referenced in my introduction to provide additional background material. DETECTOR PHYSICS AT THE LHC CITEPLACEHOLDER15IDCITEPLACEHOLDER16ID These two papers provide a detailed description of the two technologies that are used in the CMS detector. By looking at the details of the construction, I am able to notice possible shortcomings of the experiment and find ways in which it can be improved. This paper will be refernced in my introduction as well as briefly in the section concern data acquisition.

Bill Gates has some thoughts about education. Specifically, how its future might look. He recently visited Arizona, where Rio Salado College and University of Phoenix are broadening access to education. improvements include: 1. LOW COSTS (compare Rio Salado’s $84/credit-hour vs the 2011 average $250/credit-hour for in-state, public tuition); 2. FLEXIBILITY (many classes start new sections every week); 3. online and MOBILE INTEGRATION (U of Phoenix offers an app for studying and course management from anywhere, anytime). These innovative offerings help solve practical problems for modern education. Given the 40% college dropout rate, ever-rising costs of tuition, associated increases in post-college debt, the need to stay competitive, and the desire to explore new areas of knowledge, anything that lowers friction is certainly welcome. Given that these two institutions alone serve over 350k students, you also can’t argue with demand that’s clearly there.

Friday, an op-ed piece _actually_ titled “Academic Science Isn’t Sexist” went up on the _New York Times_ blog (a version appeared in the Sunday Review). It was about academic research and the lack of sexism therein. The two editorialists are co-authors on a recently released analysis on the subject (it _is_ beautifully open access, and much of the raw data is available). The piece and the paper claim sexism has largely waned in academic research, the result of shifts from a previously sexist, male-dominated academy. Further, that any remaining incongruities between male and female enrollment, advancement, and achievement are artifacts and anecdotal. Academic research is completely gender-blind now. Any differences are largely the product of society-at-large and earlier life decisions (like the choice to play with dolls/cute animals versus trucks/destructive robots). Huh. The response from the science blogging community and Twittersphere was immediate and is still on-going. Jonathan Eisen responded Halloween night, soon after the piece was posted. His immediate critique was of the acknowledgement of reports of “physical aggression” in the op-ed piece, without ever addressing these in their data or analysis (even the 60+ page research paper is short on coverage). The assumption: they are also anecdotal? So everything is actually fine? Probably not (<- this article details accounts of _sexual misconduct in field work_ involving biology, anthropology, and other social sciences, disciplines the authors above highlight as _largely welcoming and open to women_). Emily Willingham provides excellent analysis of the data presented in the paper and in the broader debate at hand. It turns out there are numerous discrepancies and avoided topics of analysis (e.g. salary figures often had statistically significant differences by gender; women more often reported lack of inclusion; more details in her impeccable post). Likewise, Matthew Francis covered the story, emphasizing the need to actively address these still-existent problems and not ignore them: the importance of even a little explicit encouragement of female students in the face of implicit discouragement (like he sees in his native field of physics) is often all that’s needed. The ever-emphatic PZ Myers rounds out the debate by breaking down the major reasoning and assumptions in the original paper, with characteristic gusto. So what exactly were the original authors thinking? A handful of distributed scientists were able to challenge the key arguments of their paper, using their data and citations, in free time over the weekend. Talk about peer-review. Seriously though, what were they thinking? I would _like to think_ that this was actually a brilliantly orchestrated publicity stunt to get more attention on this critical issue. AFTER ALL, WHO IS GOING TO BLOG/TWEET/COUNTER-OP-ED “ACADEMIC SCIENCE IS SLIGHTLY LESS SEXIST THAN WHEN MALE ACADEMICS COULD STILL SMOKE IN THEIR OFFICES”? Because when you look at the data, the background on this issue, and the immediate response from the community, it’s obvious academic research isn’t now some utopian meritocracy brimming with equality. There is still institutional and systemic biases. Whether its gender, race, sexual-preference, or need related, or tied up in the archaic publishing system that is all too easily gamed, we have a long way to go before things can be considered “fair”. What might a fair system even look like?

A revolution has occurred in the last two decades in the world of astrophysics. It all started in the mid ’90s with the first discovery of new worlds around other stars. The term “Extrasolar planet” (or Exoplanet) became widely used to identify planets orbiting a star other than the Sun. A planet is a celestial body massive enough to be bounded by its self gravity (unlike a rock or an asteroid, that are kept together by electromagnetic forces), but not massive enough to produce energy through nuclear fusion (as stars do). Planetary scientists have confirmed the existence of more than 1500 exoplanets and have identified a few thousand exoplanet candidates that require more investigation before they can join the planet club (see exoplanets.org for the most recent figures). The most remarkable discoveries came only in the last couple of years thanks to the Kepler space telescope. This amazing instrument has been patiently looking for the extremely tiny dimming induced by the passage of a planet in front of its host star. The wealth of data provided by Kepler has revealed an astonishing fact: “When you wish upon a star, you are wishing upon a star with planets” (W. Borucki). There is on average ONE PLANET ORBITING EVERY STAR IN THE UNIVERSE . Just in our Galaxy this means we have 100 billion planets. Since we have about 100 billion galaxies in the Universe, there are about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 10²² planets out there.

In this week’s _Nature_, a special issue on the evolution of modern academic institutions, Arizona State University (ASU) President Michael Crow and his vision of the New American University are profiled. Appointed President in 2002, previously Executive Vice Provost at Columbia University, Crow began restructuring ASU. His goal: to shape it into A HUB OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH, ENTREPRENEURSHIP, AND INNOVATION. 12 years into Crow’s tenure, ASU has expanded its campus, forming and constructing new research institutes like the Biodesign Institute, School of Earth and Space Exploration, and the School of Human Evolution and Social Change. The University’s growth in funding and collaboration are also remarkable. From the _Nature_ piece: ASU’s funding numbers show that grant-givers find the cross-disciplinary approach attractive. From 2003 to 2012, the university’s FEDERALLY FINANCED RESEARCH PORTFOLIO GREW BY 162%, vastly outpacing the average increase seen at 15 similar public institutions. ... The number of funded projects with principal investigators in two or more departments rose by 75% between 2003 and 2014. While the article further notes that ASU’s publication rate has more than doubled, it asserts its scientific profile has hardly been raised. Citing largely unchanged proportions of publications in high-profile journals or with high numbers of citations, this analysis doesn’t account for some important factors. 1. Since ASU’s funding at present has more than doubled, one should expect an explosive BOOM in publications and citations over the next few years; 2. Collaborating, whether in the same institution or across the world is fraught with challenges, so pace may lag; 3. The research from ASU’s new institutes and far-reaching collaborations is inherently different (innovation is, by definition); like Crow said, “We don’t want to ask the same questions as other institutions,” so there aren’t yet large circles to cite these early works; 4. Building off the above point, it can take years for journal articles to accumulate even a portion of their lifetime citations (an argument against impact factor); Even without these caveats, ASU’s progression and THE ESSENCE OF CROW’S NEW AMERICAN UNIVERSITY MODEL PRESCIENTLY ANTICIPATED RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MODERN UNIVERSITY. Observing ASU’s emphasis on cross-disciplinary entrepreneurship and innovation (E&I) through research, one notes similar trends at top-tier universities across the world. With job markets in flux, a rapidly changing economy, and an ever-increasing focus on science and technology, schools attract students and build connections to business through E&I hubs, an explicit goal of Crow’s vision for ASU. Rethinking and reimagining research and education at academic institutions is critical for universities and their students to remain competitive. Best of all, science and society will both benefit. Here’s to hoping the New American University expands beyond Phoenix, Arizona.

WHO GAVE SUMMER BACK TO CHILDREN OF THE 50S AND 60S? Yesterday was Dr. Jonas Salk’s 100th birthday. The Google Doodle celebrating it was profiled in The Guardian, which acknowledged: The story of Salk’s search for a vaccine isn’t one that should be told in isolation, stopping with the elimination of polio in the US. Instead, it sits within a rich tapestry of stories about scientific discovery and progress. Except that Salk’s treatment _wasn’t_ responsible for eradicating polio in the US. His treatment was too expensive for millions of Americans at a time when children were kept indoors during summer to prevent infection. Despite the oft-repeated Salkian quote, “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”, adminstrative powers above Salk (his involvement is unclear) determined they COULD NOT LEGALLY PATENT THE VACCINE, given previous works. Still, three vaccine shots and a booster priced polio protection only within the reach of middle class Americans and above. So infection rates dropped among demographics that could afford the Salk vaccine, while rates expanded in lower income communities, especially among under-served minority groups. This was an economic as well as access problem: pediatricians could command higher prices as there was high demand for the multi-course regimen. Dr. Albert Sabin, another polio researcher, knew that Salk’s vaccine was not the best possible solution or even sufficiently safe. His arguments for impartiality and caution were largely ignored by the council backing Salk’s vaccine (see link below), yet Sabin labored on. He developed a single orally-dosed drug that allowed low-cost, wide-scale distribution of this life-saving treatment. As described in the aptly titled review, The Myth of Jonas Salk, Sabin’s treatment was truly responsible for ending polio in the US (and is currently the one in use to eradicate polio across the globe): Beginning in January 1962, pediatricians in two Arizona counties ... conducted separate but similar voluntary mass immunizations using Sabin’s vaccine. “Previous programs using the Salk vaccine had failed to bring polio immunization to a satisfactory level,” they reported a year later in the Journal of the American Medical Association.... More than 700,000 people were immunized – 75 percent of the total population in both counties. The vaccine was given at the cost of 25 cents, for those who could pay. It was given to population groups that were socially, racially, and culturally diverse, on Indian reservations and military posts and in urban and rural areas. The program became a model for subsequent U.S. mass-immunization programs. By the mid-1960s, Sabin’s vaccine was the only one in use in the United States. It was the Sabin vaccine that closed the immunity gap and effectively put an end to polio in the States. Of course aspects of Sabin’s work were built off the work of Salk - all of science is inherently iterative. But we as a community and society at large need to have systems in place to ensure credit is given where credit is due. Thanks to a half-century of good PR and first-mover advantage, Dr. Salk is heralded as the vanquisher of polio, while it was Sabin’s dogged persistence at achieving a better solution that tipped the scales (not to mention countered an economically and racially-biased course of treatment). There is an entire subset of scientists who passed through history largely undetected, while making tremendous impacts. Female scientists have made up a disproportionate amount of this subset, routinely discouraged from research (e.g. see comments in this post). For every triumphant Salk, there is almost always a Sabin (or Rosalind Franklin, et al) who deserves equal if not more recognition. Hopefully with improved access and documentation, the scientific community can better allocate credit, resources, support, and realize improvements faster. Share this on Facebook to extend Salk’s celebration to Sabin (and the other researchers who contributed to the polio vaccine), and to serve as a reminder of the less-than-famous scientists who are giants in their own right.

INTRODUCING... Christina Laternser has a B.S. and M.S. in Mathematics and an M.S. in Economics. An experienced LaTeX user, she wrote her thesis on hyperbolic geometry using it, as well as her economics thesis. She has worked in data analytics, application development, and lectured in mathematics. She finds some time to do academic research as well. While Christina has developed and managed global intra-company team collaboration tools over LAN, effectively a stripped-down version of Authorea, this is her first introduction to the collaborative platform for research.

The traditional way to publish scientific work is to write a narrative describing the performed experiments and related conclusions. Nowadays, the pressures for funding and journal impact factor generate a vicious circle promoting, at the very least, an increase in the minimum number of relevant findings required for publication and the over-stretching of claims. As a consequence, the problem of reproducibility in science has surged to the attention of the media, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Hi friend, Now that the academic year is back in full swing, we'd like to share with you some of our latest news. First things first: We are happy to announce that we have raised a round of investment from FF Ventures and the New York Angels! We are solidifying and GROWING our team which means that Authorea will get better faster. We will keep working toward our mission to accelerate science, to improve dissemination and quality of research results and to promote Open Science. In terms of technical developments, we have implemented a bunch of new features and bug fixes. We wanted to highlight our SLEEK BRAND NEW COMMENTING INTERFACE - TRY IT NOW! GO AHEAD, HIGHLIGHT SOME TEXT AND CLICK ON THE COMMENT POPUP. It's fast and it will let you discuss your manuscripts with coauthors, reviewers, and the public. We also (finally!) developed a WORD COUNT FEATURE which lets you... uhm... count words! But you know what, different journals have different ways of counting words and we got you covered for all of them. One more feature which will make some of you happy is the MICROSOFT WORD EXPORT. Yeah that's right. Whether you are writing a math-heavy LaTeX manuscript or a student review paper, you can now export your document to Word. As usual, feel free to post your bug reports and feature requests on our feedback page or send us an email at [email protected] with any questions. Happy writing, The Authorea team (oh, we're hiring!)