ARMPIT
|
ASKAP Rotation Measure and Polarisation InvestigaTion
|
BICEP
|
Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization
|
BOOMERanG
|
Balloon Observations Of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation and Geophysics
|
COYOTES
|
Coordinated Observations of Young ObjecTs from Earthbound Sites
|
FaNTOmM
|
Fabry-perot of New Technology for the Observatoire du mont Megantic
|
GADZOOKS!
|
Gadolinium Antineutrino Detector Zealously Outperforming Old Kamiokande, Super!
|
MAMBO
|
MAx-planck-Millimeter-BOlometer
|
PINOCCHIO
|
PINpointing Orbit-Crossing Collapsed HIerarchial Objects
|
POOPSY
|
Phase One Observing Proposal SYstem
|
SiEGMuND
|
Simulation of Events with Geant for Muon and Neutrino Detectors
|
TANGOinPARIS
|
Testing Astroparticle with the New Gev/tev Observations Positrons And electRons : Identifying the Sources
|
WOMBAT
|
Wavelength-Oriented Microwave Background Analysis Team
|
That's hardly all of them. There is still MAGIC (MajorAtmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov Telescopes), GANDALF (Gas and Absorption LineFitting), MERLIN (Multi-Element Radio Linked Interferometer Network), ARISTOTELES: Applications and Research Involving Space TechnologiesObserving the Earth's field from Low Earth orbiting Satellite, CANGAROO: Collaboration between Australian and Nippon for a GammaRay Observatory in the Outback.
Some, I can't believe were approved. For example WISEASS (Weizmann Institute of Science Experimental Astrophysics Spectroscopy System). Here is a link to prove it's real. And SHIT (Super Huge Interferometric Telescope). Here is the link for that one.
Ok, I have had enough fun. Now to the point of the blog post. I would like to propose a Fermi problem: How many acronyms can astronomers possibly make?
Ok, so astronomers have already exceeded my expectations. This blog already has about 400 entries. By estimating from the first thirty or so, the average acronym is 5 letters long. With 26 letters, we can approximate the possible number of letter combinations: \[ 26 \times 26 \times 26 \times 26 \times 26 = 26^5 = 1.2 \times 10^7 \] For a fermi problem this really means our answer is \(10^7\).
We can assume that not all of these combinations make actual words. For example, AAAAA doesn't mean anything to us. I am going to guess that about 10% of combinations make words, in any language that uses our alphabet. But most astronomy happens in English, so I am going to guess that about 10% of those combinations, could be words in English. Therefore, 1% of the words we calculated could make acronyms in English. \[ \frac{10^7}{100} = \boxed{10^5 \: acronyms } \] This is most likely a overestimate, but I am going to keep it because I didn't count the acronyms with numbers (e.g. 5MUSES) or in other languages (e.g. ALMA).
So how does my answer compare? According to the internet, there are \(2 \times 10^5 \) words in the English dictionary, which means that astronomers can make acronyms of about half the words in the dictionary. They better get cracking on that. Good thing there are nearly infinite things to discover in outer space.
Sources:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~gpetitpas/Links/Astroacro.html
http://space.io9.com/an-alphabet-soup-of-absurd-astronomy-acronyms-1613063426
http://www.space.com/28244-strange-astronomy-acronyms.html
Ahaha this is a super fun post! Astronomers come up with crazy names :) 5/5
ReplyDelete