IAU General Assembly: Bom Dia August 5, 2009
Posted by sarah in: astronomy , trackback
After a much needed and thoroughly enjoyable jaunt around Brazil, I’m now at the 27th General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union in Rio de Janeiro. The IAU is the organisation that decides, amongst many other things, what is a planet and how we name new objects found in space. Every three years, they organise a huge astronomy jamboree where the community gets together to discuss the latest science and the state of the profession (and have a few drinks).
So far the conference has been pretty enjoyable, despite some organisational blips and a presidential no-show at the inauguration ceremony. I will say much more about it, after I’ve delivered my talk tomorrow lunchtime in a session entitled “High-resolution infrared and submillimetre spectroscopy: A tool for studying stellar evolution”. I’ll be talking about how high-resolution spectroscopic performance at infrared wavelengths changes between high and low altitude sites. Several other speakers have already touched on the topic in the last couple of days. This means my results will probably not impress many listeners; on the other hand it suggests that I’m not barking up the wrong tree entirely. This is not always a given, and thus nice to hear.
The .Astronomy workshop has also received plenty of airtime already at the meeting, which I’m very pleased about!
For updates on the conference as it happens, you can follow the #IAU hashtag on twitter (and of course me).
Comments»
The IAU is no longer “the” organization that decides “what is a planet.” They messed up that one big time in 2006; only 424 members voted on the controversial demotion, and most were not planetary scientists. Their definition was immediately rejected by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. The IAU can claim whatever it wants, but if enough scientists refuse to use its definitions, and in response, the IAU refuses to clean up the mess it made, the organization will simply become one of many and no longer the “governing body” that decides such things. The fact remains that the 2006 planet definition is terrible; it makes no sense linguistically or scientifically, and large numbers in the astronomy community are simply ignoring it.
Thanks for the comment. Your point is certainly valid and many share your concerns. I don’t really want to get involved in the debate, I have neither the background or the interest to provide an informed opinion on the topic…..