Science
Jeremiah Ostriker, Who Plumbed Dark Forces That Shape Universe, Dies at 86
Jeremiah Ostriker, an astrophysicist who helped set off a revolution in humankind’s view of the universe, revealing it to be a vaster, darker realm than the one we can see, ruled by invisible forms of matter and energy we still don’t understand, died on Sunday at his home on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. He was 87.
His daughter Rebecca Ostriker said the cause was end-stage renal disease.
Over more than four decades, mostly at Princeton University, Dr. Ostriker’s work altered our understanding of how galaxies form and evolve as he explored the nature of pulsars, the role of black holes in the evolution of the cosmos and what the universe is made of.
Before the 1970s, most astronomers believed that galaxies were made up mostly of stars.
“Ostriker was arguably the most important single figure in convincing the astronomical community that this natural and seductive assumption is wrong,” David Spergel, the president of the Simons Foundation, which supports scientific research, wrote in 2022, nominating Dr. Ostriker, his mentor, for the Crafoord Prize, the astronomical equivalent of a Nobel. He cited Dr. Ostriker’s “eloquent advocacy for the then-radical new model in which the visible stars in galaxies were only a minor pollutant at the center of a much larger halo of dark matter of unknown composition.”
Dr. Ostriker’s work, he said, was “the grandest revision in our understanding of galaxies” in half a century.
Jerry Ostriker, as he was known to friends and colleagues, a man with a prickly sense of humor and a soft but commanding voice, was willing to go wherever the data and scientific calculations led him, and was not shy about questioning assumptions — or having fun. Prominently displayed in his home was a youthful photo of himself, taken in Cambridge, Mass., driving a motor scooter as his wife, Alicia Ostriker, seated behind him, lifts a bottle of wine to her lips. (A close look shows the cork still in the bottle.)
“He had the quickest wit of any scientist I have encountered,” said James Peebles, a Nobel physics laureate and a colleague of Dr. Ostriker’s at Princeton. “And I don’t remember ever matching him in a spontaneous debate” on any issue.
Asked in a 1988 oral history interview for the American Institute of Physics if he had favored any of the models of the universe being batted about in the 1970s, when he entered the field — whether the universe was finite or infinite, whether it had a beginning or was somehow always here, whether it would expand forever or crash back down in a big crunch — he said he had not.
“Scientists have followed their own biases, and my principle bias at the time was being contemptuous and intolerant of all of these people who had specific models,” he answered. “How could they be so certain when the evidence was as confusing and inconclusive?”
A ‘Classic Nerd Child’
Jeremiah Paul Ostriker was born on April 13, 1937, on the Upper West Side, the second of four siblings. His father, Martin Ostriker, ran a clothing company, and his mother, Jeanne (Sumpf) Ostriker, was a public-school teacher. Babe Ruth lived around the corner, and the children used to chase his car for autographs.
“I must have been the classic nerd child,” Dr. Ostriker wrote in a memoir published in the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics in 2016. He first became interested in science when he was 4: His mother started reading science books aloud to get him to sit still for an oil portrait, and the readings stuck.
After graduating from the Ethical Culture Fieldston School in the Bronx, Jerry Ostriker went to Harvard University, where he planned to study chemistry. Instead, he switched to physics, which appealed to what he called his “cosmic perspective.”
“I probably spent more time on literature than I spent on science,” he said in the oral history interview.
He soon began commuting to Brandeis University to visit Alicia Suskin, a former Fieldston classmate who was an aspiring artist and poet. They were married in 1958, while they were still undergraduates.
Ms. Ostriker, a professor emerita of English at Rutgers University, became an award-winning poet and has often written her husband into her work. In turn, he found poetry in astrophysics. “As an astrophysicist, you get a perspective on humankind,” he said, describing it as “sweating on this little grain of spinning sand.”
In addition to his wife and his daughter Rebecca, an editor for the opinion section of The Boston Globe, Dr. Ostriker is survived by two other children, Eve Ostriker, an astrophysicist at Princeton, and Gabriel Ostriker, a data engineer; a sister, Naomi Seligman; two brothers, Jon and David; and three grandchildren.
After graduating from Harvard in 1959, Dr. Ostriker worked at the United States Naval Research Laboratory for a year before enrolling in graduate school at the University of Chicago, splitting his time between the university’s Yerkes Observatory and the physics department, where he worked under the future Nobel laureate Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.
He earned his Ph.D. in 1964. After a postdoctoral year at the University of Cambridge in England, where he rubbed elbows with future black hole eminences like Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees, Dr. Ostriker joined Princeton as a research scientist. He remained there for 47 years, rising through the ranks to become chairman of the astronomy department and provost of the university.
The Dark Side of the Universe
At Princeton, Dr. Ostriker wrote a series of papers that would lead astronomy to the dark side.
He wondered whether galaxies, like stars, could break apart if they rotated too fast. The question was particularly relevant to so-called disc galaxies like the Milky Way, which are shaped sort of like a fried egg, with a fat, yolky center surrounded by a thin, white flat of stars.
Working with Dr. Peebles, he constructed a computer simulation and found that disc galaxies were indeed unstable. They would fall apart unless there was something we couldn’t see, a halo of some additional invisible mass, lending gravitational support.
Whatever this stuff called dark matter was — dim stars, black holes, rocks, exotic subatomic particles left over from the Big Bang — there could be a lot of it, as much as 10 times the mass of ordinary atomic matter.
It was one of the first theoretical arguments that there must be more to galaxies than could be seen in starlight. In the 1930s, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky had suggested that most of the mass in galaxies was “dark.” His idea was largely ignored until Dr. Ostriker and Dr. Peebles published their paper in 1973.
The reaction from the scientific community was predominantly hostile, Dr. Ostriker said. “I couldn’t see particularly why,” he said in the oral history. “It was just a fact.”
A year later, incorporating more data from galaxy clusters and other star systems, he and his colleagues argued that, in fact, most of the mass in the universe was invisible.
By the early 1980s, the idea of dark matter had become an accepted part of cosmology, but there remained conundrums, including calculations that suggested that stars were older than the universe in which they lived.
The missing ingredient, Dr. Ostriker and the theoretical physicist Paul Steinhardt, then at the University of Pennsylvania, suggested in 1995, was a fudge factor known as the cosmological constant. Einstein had come up with this concept in 1917, but had later abandoned it, considering it a blunder.
As Dr. Steinhardt recalled, he and Dr. Ostriker were “convinced that a universe with only dark and ordinary matter could not explain the existing observations.” But once they added the cosmological constant, everything came out right.
They were not the only ones with this idea. The cosmologists Michael Turner, now retired from the University of Chicago, and Lawrence Krauss, now retired from Arizona State University, also argued in favor of bringing back the constant. “To say Jerry was a giant in the field is an understatement,” Dr. Turner wrote in an email, adding, “Sparring with Jerry over science was a privilege and often a learning experience.”
Three years later, two competing teams of astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe was being accelerated by a “dark energy” acting as the cosmological constant, pushing galaxies apart. The cosmological constant then became part of a standard model of the universe, as Dr. Ostriker and others had predicted.
In another series of papers, he and various collaborators transformed astronomers’ view of what was going on in the space between stars.
Dr. Ostriker and Renyue Cen, also of Princeton, concluded in 1999 that most ordinary atomic matter in the nearby universe was invisible, taking the form of intergalactic gas heated to millions of degrees by shock waves and explosions.
A Passion That Never Waned
At Princeton, Dr. Ostriker helped set up the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, a collaboration — initially of Princeton, the University of Chicago and the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. — aimed at remapping the entire sky in digital form with a dedicated telescope at Apache Point Observatory in Sunspot, N.M.
“The survey is going to increase our knowledge and our understanding of the universe a hundredfold,” he told The New York Times in 1991. “The map is not going to show us how the universe began, but it will show us the nature and origin of large-scale structure, the most interesting problem in astrophysics today. With an answer to this problem, we will be able to better approach the question of how it all began.”
The survey, started in 1998, is now in its fifth iteration and has generated some 10,000 research papers and archived measurements of a half-billion stars and galaxies, all free to any astronomer in the world.
As provost, Dr. Ostriker led the effort to vastly expand the university’s financial aid program, changing many loans to grants that would not need to be repaid, making a Princeton education more egalitarian. In 2000, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Bill Clinton.
Dr. Ostriker retired from Princeton in 2012, just as his daughter Eve was joining the astronomy faculty there. He took a part-time position at Columbia University, returning to his childhood neighborhood.
“Growing up in New York City, I couldn’t see the stars,” he once told The Times. He found them anyway, and a whole lot more that we can’t see with or without the glare of streetlights.
It was a passion that never waned. Encountered recently by a reporter on the sidewalk in front of Columbia, Dr. Ostriker launched into an enthusiastic description of a promising new theory of dark matter.
Early in 2023, by then ailing, he took to his bed at home. But he kept up with his research by email and had regular pizza lunches with colleagues.
Apprised recently of results from the James Webb Space Telescope that seemed to reinforce his ideas about dark matter, he wrote in an email to his colleagues, “Keep up the good work.”
The dark universe he helped conjure half a century ago has developed a few small cracks, leading to new ideas about the nature of that dark matter.
“It’s a very, very, very specific and clear theory. So therefore, God bless it, it can be wrong,” Dr. Ostriker said in a recent interview. “That’s the way science proceeds. And what we know about it is that it is a little bit wrong, not a lot wrong.”
Dr. Rees, a cosmologist at the University of Cambridge and the Astronomer Royal, summed up Dr. Ostriker’s life this way: “Some scientists come up with pioneering ideas on novel themes; others write definitive ‘last words’ on already-established topics. Jerry was in the first category.”
“He wrote among the earliest papers — now classics — on the nature of pulsars, the evidence for dark matter and on galaxy formation and cosmology. His flow of papers continued into his 80s,” Dr. Rees added. “He enthusiastically engaged in new data and in computational techniques. He inspired younger colleagues and collaborators, not just at Princeton but around the world.”
Science
CDC replaces website on vaccines and autism with false and misleading statements
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has altered its website on autism and vaccines, removing unequivocal statements that immunizations don’t cause the neurodevelopmental disorder and replacing them with inaccurate and misleading information about the links between the shots and autism.
Until Wednesday, the CDC page, “Autism and Vaccines,” began: “Studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD).”
This was followed, in large font, by the blunt statement: “Vaccines do not cause autism.”
The rest of the page summarized some of the CDC’s own studies into autism and vaccine ingredients, none of which found any causal links between the two.
On Wednesday, the page was altered so that it now begins: “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”
The words “Vaccines do not cause autism” still appear near the top, but with an asterisk that leads to a note at the bottom.
“The header ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ has not been removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website,” the site states.
The chair of that committee, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), cast the deciding vote to advance Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointment as Health and Human Services secretary, in exchange for Kennedy’s promise that he wouldn’t erode public confidence in vaccines.
“What parents need to hear right now is vaccines for measles, polio, hepatitis B and other childhood diseases are safe and effective and will not cause autism. Any statement to the contrary is wrong, irresponsible, and actively makes Americans sicker,” Cassidy said in a post on X on Thursday afternoon. “Families are getting sick and people are dying from vaccine-preventable deaths, and that tragedy needs to stop.” Cassidy’s office did not immediately respond to further requests for comment Thursday.
“Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities,” HHS spokesman Andrew Dixon said in an email. “We are updating the CDC’s website to reflect gold standard, evidence-based science.”
The news was met with outrage and alarm by scientists and advocates.
“Can we trust what’s coming from CDC anymore? I don’t know the answer to that question,” said Dr. Sean O’Leary, chair of the infectious disease committee at the American Academy of Pediatrics, adding that the website change reflects a “tragic moment” for U.S. public health.
“We are appalled to find that the content on the CDC webpage ‘Autism and Vaccines’ has been changed and distorted, and is now filled with anti-vaccine rhetoric and outright lies about vaccines and autism,” the nonprofit Autism Science Foundation said in a statement. “The CDC’s previous science- and evidence-based website has been replaced with misinformation and now actually contradicts the best available science.”
Alison Singer, the organization’s co-founder and president, expressed further frustration.
“Just like we no longer study whether the Earth is flat, at some point with regard to autism and vaccines, you have to call it and say ‘enough is enough,’” Singer said. “We don’t have an unlimited amount of money with which to study autism, and if we keep asking the same questions, we will never find the true causes of autism.”
The current CDC page now says the rise in autism diagnoses correlates with an increase in the number of vaccines given to infants. Multiple researchers have argued that the rise in autism spectrum disorder diagnoses is better explained by an expanding diagnostic definition of the disorder, along with better monitoring and diagnosis for more children.
“This issue has been studied exhaustively, and it has been shown over and over again that vaccines do not cause autism,” said Colin Killick, executive director of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network. “This administration continues to lie about autism in ways that endanger both our community and the broader population.”
Science
California regulators approve rules to curb methane leaks and prevent fires at landfills
In one of the most important state environmental decisions this year, California air regulators adopted new rules designed to reduce methane leaks and better respond to disastrous underground fires at landfills statewide.
California Air Resources Board members voted 12-0 on Thursday to approve a batch of new regulations for the state’s nearly 200 large landfills, designed to minimize the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas produced by decomposing organic waste. Landfills are California’s second-largest source of methane emissions, following only the state’s large dairy cow and livestock herds.
The new requirements will force landfill operators to install additional pollution controls; more comprehensively investigate methane leaks on parts of landfills that are inaccessible with on-the-ground monitoring using new technology like drones and satellites; and fix equipment breakdowns much faster. Landfill operators also will be required to repair leaks identified through California’s new satellite-detection program.
The regulation is expected to prevent the release of 17,000 metric tons of methane annually — an amount capable of warming the atmosphere as much as 110,000 gas-fired cars driven for a year.
It also will curtail other harmful landfill pollution, such as lung-aggravating sulfur and cancer-causing benzene. Landfill operators will be required to keep better track of high temperatures and take steps to minimize the fire risks that heat could create.
There are underground fires burning in at least two landfills in Southern California — smoldering chemical reactions that are incinerating buried garbage, releasing toxic fumes and spewing liquid waste. Regulators found explosive levels of methane emanating from many other landfills across the state.
During the three-hour Air Resources Board hearing preceding the vote, several Californians who live near Chiquita Canyon Landfill — one of the known sites where garbage is burning deep underground — implored the board to act to prevent disasters in other communities across the state.
“If these rules were already updated, maybe my family wouldn’t be sick,” said Steven Howse, a 27-year resident of Val Verde. “My house wouldn’t be for sale. My close friend and neighbor would still live next door to me. And I wouldn’t be pleading with you right now. You have the power to change this.”
Landfill operators, including companies and local governments, voiced their concern about the costs and labor needed to comply with the regulation.
“We want to make sure that the rule is implementable for our communities, not unnecessarily burdensome,” said John Kennedy, a senior policy advocate for Rural County Representatives of California, a nonprofit organization representing 40 of the state’s 58 counties, many of which own and operate landfills. “While we support the overarching goals of the rule, we remain deeply concerned about specific measures including in the regulation.”
Lauren Sanchez, who was appointed chair of the California Air Resources Board in October, recently attended the United Nations’ COP30 climate conference in Brazil with Gov. Gavin Newsom. What she learned at the summit, she said, made clear to her that California’s methane emissions have international consequences, and that the state has an imperative to reduce them.
“The science is clear, acting now to reduce emissions of methane and other short-lived climate pollutants is the best way to immediately slow the pace of climate change,” Sanchez said.
Science
See How Home Insurance Premiums Are Changing Near You
Insurance premiums are rising fast in the parts of the United States most exposed to climate-related disasters like wildfires and hurricanes.
New research shows that, as insurance has sharply pushed up the cost of owning a home, the price shock is starting to reverberate through the broader real estate market.
Rising insurance costs are eating into household budgets.
In some areas of the country that are exposed to disasters, homes are not selling because prospective buyers can’t afford both the mortgage and the insurance.
In parts of the hail-prone Midwestern states, insurance now eats up more than one-fifth of the average homeowner’s total housing payments, including mortgage costs and property taxes. In Orleans Parish, La., that number is nearly 30 percent.
Home insurance costs have soared where climate hazards are highest.
Nationally, insurance rates have risen by an average of 58 percent since 2018, outpacing inflation by a substantial margin. But that growth has been highly uneven across the United States.
Places that are most vulnerable to climate-related disasters like hurricanes, fires and hail are seeing some of the largest premium increases. It’s not always the case that the highest climate risk translates into the highest insurance costs. Local policies and regulations have helped keep prices lower in high-risk places, like parts of California. Other factors, like a homeowner’s credit score, can affect premiums, too.
What’s driving up insurance prices?
Since 2017, an obscure part of the insurance market, known as reinsurance, has helped push up premiums. Insurance companies buy reinsurance to help limit their exposure when a catastrophe hits. Over the past several years, reinsurance companies have experienced what Benjamin Keys and Philip Mulder, the researchers who led the new study, call a “climate epiphany.” As a result, the rates they charge to protect home insurance companies against catastrophic losses have roughly doubled.
Insurance providers have, in turn, passed these costs on to homeowners. The rapid repricing of climate risk is responsible for about 20 percent of home insurance premium increases since 2017, according to Dr. Keys and Dr. Mulder.
What else is contributing to high rates? Rebuilding costs are responsible for about 35 percent of the recent changes, the research found. Population shifts and inflation are factors, too.
High insurance prices are weighing down home values.
Since 2018, a financial shock in the home insurance market has meant that homes in the ZIP codes most exposed to hurricanes and wildfires sell for an average of $43,900 less than they otherwise would have, the research found.
In many places, insurance has been a relatively small part of the homebuying equation. Now, for many, it’s a major consideration.
For several homeowners we interviewed in Louisiana, monthly insurance costs are now higher than their home loan payments.
The research shows buyers may be factoring rising insurance costs into the prices they’re willing to pay for homes. As a result, homes in some areas are selling for less.
Methodology
Benjamin Keys and Philip Mulder calculated annual homeowners’ insurance costs by separating mortgage and tax payments from loan-level escrow data obtained from CoreLogic, a property and risk analytics firm. Households whose payments were captured by CoreLogic were not necessarily present in all years of data from 2014 to 2024.
The home insurance share of total home payments is based on mean values. Total home payments include insurance, property tax and mortgage principal and interest costs. Escrow payments typically do not include utilities, homeowners’ association fees.
-
Business1 week agoDeveloper plans to add a hotel and hundreds of residences to L.A. Live
-
Southwest1 week agoFury erupts after accused teen sex predator dodges prison; families swarm courthouse demanding judge’s head
-
Business5 days ago
Fire survivors can use this new portal to rebuild faster and save money
-
World1 week agoVideo: Russia’s First A.I. Humanoid Robot Crashes Into the Tech Scene
-
Politics1 week agoMajor Pentagon contractor executive caught in child sex sting operation
-
World4 days agoFrance and Germany support simplification push for digital rules
-
Technology1 week agoAI-powered scams target kids while parents stay silent
-
News5 days agoCourt documents shed light on Indiana shooting that sparked stand-your-ground debate