Quantcast

Tuesday, July 22, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 6 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Former UH astronomer gets his due for discovering the Kuiper Belt

By Los Angeles Times

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 05:58 a.m. HST, Sep 04, 2012


LOS ANGELES » Dressed as usual in jeans and Velcro-secured sneakers, former University of Hawaii astronomer David Jewitt sat at his desk at UCLA recently and feigned concern: What, exactly, does one wear when accepting gold medals from the king of Norway and a Chinese billionaire-philanthropist? 

“I’m trying to figure out what a tuxedo is,” he said, rolling his eyes. “It’s apparently different everywhere.”

Fashion isn’t familiar territory for Jewitt, 54, an expert on comets and the other small objects zipping through the solar system. But he’ll need a proper suit today when he receives the Kavli Prize in astrophysics in Oslo, and another on Sept. 17 when he picks up the Shaw Prize in astronomy in Hong Kong.

The awards - second in prestige only to the Nobel Prize - are in recognition of Jewitt’s discovery of the Kuiper Belt, a doughnut of icy bodies orbiting beyond Neptune. Confirming the belt’s existence has revolutionized scientists’ view of Earth’s neighborhood, leading to Pluto’s demotion to dwarf planet and helping astronomers reconstruct the solar system’s turbulent early history.

Jewitt stared through telescopes for five years before finding the first recognized Kuiper Belt object, 1992 QB1, a 150-mile wide chunk of ice and dirt. Two decades later, he’s excited to get the acclaim - along with his share of the prize money: $833,333. But with just one day to go before departing for the Kavli ceremonies, he still hadn’t rented a tux.

Maybe he was too busy writing grant proposals, listening to death metal, prepping for fall courses, walking his daughter home from middle school or pondering the origins of Earth’s oceans.

Or maybe he was just being Dave.

“This stuff makes him horribly uncomfortable,” said fellow UCLA planetary scientist Jonathan Mitchell.

Jewitt was born in London to working-class parents. No one in his family had attended college, but they encouraged his fascination with the U.S. space program, giving him his first telescope for his eighth birthday.

In 1979, Jewitt started graduate school at the California Institute of Technology, where he focused on comets and planetary nebulae, the clouds formed by dying sun-like stars. By the time he joined the MIT faculty in 1983, he was searching for what lay beyond Neptune.

The notion that there might be stuff in the outer solar system wasn’t new - astronomer Gerard Kuiper suggested in 1951 that small planets or comets might have formed there - but no one had detected anything.

“That seemed weird,” Jewitt said. “The inner solar system is full of all these objects. Why would the outer solar system be empty?” Perhaps the objects were just too dim for current technology to detect. He and a graduate student, Jane Luu, started searching.

During an early attempt to spot objects as they passed in front of distant stars, the pair had trouble telling the difference between the shadows cast by birds flying over their telescope and those caused by heavenly bodies.

“We called the Audubon Society and asked, ’What is the surface density of birds?’ ” Jewitt said. “It got to the point of ridiculousness.”

So they began looking for light from objects themselves.

The scientists knew that any bodies beyond the giant planets would be moving across the sky at a rate they could calculate, so they scanned huge glass photographic plates for signs of slow-moving dots of light. After about a year they switched to digital images, but the chips available at the time were too small to spot anything.

In 1988, after moving their project to the University of Hawaii, Jewitt and Luu announced their search so far had come up empty. Funding dried up as well.

“We could have stopped,” Jewitt said. “But just when we’d think, ’Oh, forget it, it’s hopeless,’ the technology would be twice as powerful.”

They began looking on the sly, sneaking in searches during their other telescope-based research.

Then, in August 1992, they found a faint dot. It was heading west, at exactly the right speed, against the starry background.

“Its motion was perfect,” Jewitt said.

He and Luu tracked 1992 QB1 as long as they could, afraid that if they looked away they would never find it again. Over the next year, they discovered another slow-moving object, and then more. The entire collection came to be known as the Kuiper Belt.

Caltech astronomer Mike Brown, who has spent much of his career discovering Kuiper Belt objects, said Jewitt’s success resulted from a combination of creativity and stubbornness.

“Dave just had the hunch ... that something was out there, and he kept going at it,” Brown said.

Today there are about 1,500 known Kuiper Belt objects.

“In the end, we stopped recording them because they’re so common,” Jewitt said. “If I see one now, I just move on.”

As Kuiper Belt objects piled up, the importance of the hard-won discovery became apparent: The solar system was not the “boring” place many scientists had thought.

“You can still find new stuff,” Jewitt said. “This gives us more information about the formation of the solar system than we ever thought we’d have.”

The belt’s icy objects have been in perpetual deep-freeze, unchanged since the birth of the planetary system. By studying how much water, carbon dioxide and methane the bodies contain, scientists can better understand the initial composition of the solar system.

Many comets come from the Kuiper Belt, the discovery revealed. Also, the configuration of the belt’s objects provided evidence that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune didn’t form in the orbits they’re in now. “The giant planets are the shipwreck,” Brown said, “and the Kuiper Belt is the stuff that washes up on the shore.”

Astronomers understood the importance of Jewitt’s discovery immediately. But the message took longer to get out to the public, which would get to know the Kuiper Belt during the 2006 debate over whether its most famous object, Pluto, was or wasn’t a planet.

That controversy rankled Jewitt, who had considered the question settled for years: “Pluto isn’t special,” he said. “It’s a Kuiper Belt object. It’s just the first that was discovered, and it was discovered out of context.”

Jewitt has moved on from many of his Kuiper Belt studies. By tweaking his search methods, he and former student Scott Sheppard discovered 46 moons of Jupiter, 25 of Saturn, two of Uranus and one of Neptune.

“He’s the kind of person who could study one thing one year and switch to another the next and be successful,” said astronomer Chad Trujillo, who worked with Jewitt on the Kuiper Belt search as a graduate student. “Most people will study one thing their entire lives, whether it’s still interesting or not.”

These days Jewitt is enthralled with so-called main belt comets, “freakish objects” that move like asteroids but look like comets.

In a recent lunchtime session at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the Los Angeles area, Jewitt displayed pictures of his obsession, suggesting main belt comets might be the source of Earth’s water.

Scientists have shown that the water in comets, once believed to have seeded the oceans, does not have the same mix of hydrogen isotopes as the water on Earth. But the water in main belt comets might. It’s a premise Jewitt would like to test by sending a spacecraft to the asteroid belt.

His other current goal is to win a grant from NASA for astrobiology - the search for life beyond Earth - in part because it bridges disparate fields such as astronomy, nanoscience and cell biology. In his opinion, scientists are too specialized.

Plus, he says, astrobiology is interesting.

“The biggest question is: ’Where do we come from and how did we come to be?’ ” Jewitt said. “You can’t separate astronomy and biology. Life is a cosmic phenomenon.”

Jewitt will share the Kavli Prize with Brown, and both awards with Luu. He plans to use the money to help get out of debt after his move to Los Angeles in 2009.

Not that he can’t have some fun in the process.

His wife, solar scientist Jing Li, said Jewitt recently treated himself to a 340-pound bronze of a Tyrannosaurus rex head, complete with pointy teeth and movable jaw. The $5,000 sculpture is parked in the family’s backyard.

Li hadn’t been keen on it but figured her husband - who had wanted the thing for years - had earned it.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 6 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(6)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
managerr wrote:
So it's his fault Pluto isn't a planet! :P
on September 4,2012 | 05:04AM
inverse wrote:
Why did this researcher leave UH to UCLA In 2009? UCLA I would think has access to some top telescopes, however isn't UH superior by having guaranteed access to the Mauna Kea telescopes that are better, or not the best location in the world for astronmers to view stars, comets and the other stuff in the sky? In fact didn't this astronomer use the Mauna Kea telescope while at UH to make this discovery? I hope the reason this top astromer did not leave UH was because of politics at UH, similarly to how team Yanagimachi, the team that discovered the 'green' mice, fell apart because of UH administrators treating these top researchers like garbage instead of rewardimg them and retaining them. Appears UH will always be mediocre, not because they cannot attract the worlds best researchers but because they cannot retain them because UH administrators put faculty second due to politics, ulterior motives and outright incompetence. For example, instead of UH retaining a lump on the log and LOSER like Hinshaw at the UH school of Medicine for her almost $300,000 per year salary they could have hired truly world class researchers in the medical field that would truly bring the department to the forefront again and secure real grant funding. Instead UH promotes and rewards incompetence and the truly 'best of the best' get frustrated and leave UH. I bet after the Wonder blunder, it only verifies to many world class researchers/ professors to stay away or never make UH their permanent place of employment.
on September 4,2012 | 06:06AM
fbiguy wrote:
The incentive system at UH discourages hard workers and elite minds. If you bring in 1 million in grants or 100 million, one's salary is the same. Guess what happens under that system?
on September 4,2012 | 08:18AM
Shh wrote:
OMG! You're pulling straws now. Geeze. He probably had his reasons to go to UCLA and it probably had nothing to do with what you are stating. Don't need to be a hater of UH. Just be proud of the form UH astronomer! =)
on September 4,2012 | 08:33AM
inverse wrote:
You are right I don't know about this astronomer and his exact reasons for leaving UH for UCLA. HOWEVER, UH's administration's failure with Team Yanagimachi and treating Tony Perry, the visiting researcher from England like garbage, is well documented and would have had a major impact in the academic circles throughout the world that has given UH a black eye, probably even to this day. It is clear the Wonder blunder is just the TIP of the iceberg of failures of the UH administration INCLUDING retaining top faculty to BUILD UH academics so that it can compete with the State Univ. of California system. Oh wait a minute, Greenwood would have been fired if she did not resign from the Univ of California system and is now president of UH. There is not much to be proud of UH right now and articles like this where top UH researchers get awarded for excellence but have since split UH are rightfully open to scrutiny and suspicion .
on September 4,2012 | 01:12PM
inverse wrote:
Correction: The underline should have only been for the word academics
on September 4,2012 | 01:13PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Blogs