logo
Jeremiah Ostriker, Who Plumbed Dark Forces That Shape Universe, Dies at 87

Jeremiah Ostriker, Who Plumbed Dark Forces That Shape Universe, Dies at 87

New York Times07-04-2025

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 photo of himself, taken during a sabbatical in California, driving a moped with a bottle of wine in hand.
'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.
Alicia 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, 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.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The great poaching: America's brain drain begins
The great poaching: America's brain drain begins

Axios

time13 hours ago

  • Axios

The great poaching: America's brain drain begins

The Trump administration's spending cuts and restrictions on foreign students are triggering a brain drain — and American scientists are panicking. Why it matters: U.S. researchers' fears are coming true. America's science pipeline is drying up, and countries like China are seizing the opportunity to surge ahead. 'This is such a race for being the science powerhouse that you never fully recover,' says Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences. 'You might accelerate back up to 60, but you can't make up for those years when you were at a standstill while the competition was racing ahead.' Driving the news: The National Science Foundation, which funds much of America's fundamental science research, is already doling out grants at its slowest pace in 35 years, The New York Times reports. More cuts to science could come with the "big, beautiful bill." Universities are also watching with bated breath as the administration tries to limit the number of foreign students studying in the U.S.. Harvard is pushing back, but could face a total ban on recruiting internationally. The Trump administration says it will " aggressively revoke" visas for Chinese students studying in "critical fields." By the numbers: While American universities are rescinding offers to incoming PhD students, other countries are recruiting heavily from U.S. labs. The journal Nature analyzed data from its jobs platform to track where scientists are looking for work. In the first few months of the Trump administration, there were jumps in the the number of U.S. applicants looking for jobs in Canada (+41%), Europe (+32%), China (+20%) and other Asian countries (+39%), compared to the same period in 2024. U.S. jobs saw fewer applications from candidates in Canada (–13%) and Europe (–41%). Case in point: France's Aix-Marseille University, which made headlines for earmarking millions of dollars for U.S. scientists, closed its application window after receiving a flood of apps. After American Nobel laureate Ardem Patapoutian's federal grant was frozen, he got an email from China offering 20 years of funding if he relocates his lab, The New York Times' Kate Zernike writes. He declined. 'This is a once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity,' the Australian Strategic Policy Institute wrote in a brief. The other side: The White House argues that its changes to the system will usher in a golden age of science and rebuild public trust. President Trump has also suggested that spots freed up by rejecting international students could be filled by American applicants. But professors say this isn't entirely realistic. "In hard sciences, in astronomy and physics and computer science, for example, there's no way you would fill that hole with local applicants of comparable quality," says Chris Impey, an astronomer at the University of Arizona. What to watch: 'The optimistic part of all of us thinks science is strong enough to outlast one administration, and for a while I thought that, but the hit to young people is at the center of the whole enterprise,' Impey says. 'It's like pulling the rug out from under the whole thing." It's not just brain drain of existing talent, he says. Students who are in high school and college now and thinking about a career in research might reconsider. "There's plenty of things smart kids can do. They don't have to go into science." At the same time, McNutt says she tells students: "If you went into graduate school in the fall of this year, by the time you get your PhD, this madness may be over. You come out with your new PhD ready to fill the gap."

Harvard Gets Other Universities' Backing in Trump Funding Fight
Harvard Gets Other Universities' Backing in Trump Funding Fight

Bloomberg

timea day ago

  • Bloomberg

Harvard Gets Other Universities' Backing in Trump Funding Fight

A group of 18 leading US research universities, including Princeton, MIT, Caltech and Johns Hopkins, asked a federal judge for permission to file legal arguments in support of Harvard University in its high-stakes showdown with the Trump administration over more than $2 billion in frozen grant money. The institutions have all received millions of dollars from the federal government for research that has 'advanced scientific knowledge, safeguarded national security, strengthened the American economy, and saved countless lives,' they said in a court filing Friday in Harvard's lawsuit.

State-level AI regulation ban emerging as D.C. flashpoint
State-level AI regulation ban emerging as D.C. flashpoint

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

State-level AI regulation ban emerging as D.C. flashpoint

BOSTON (SHNS) – Governors and legislatures 'won't be happy' if the federal government bars them from enacting any state-level regulations on artificial intelligence for the next decade, U.S. Sen. Ed Markey said Wednesday while pledging an effort to get the policy rider tossed from a funding bill. The junior senator from Massachusetts convened civil rights activists and academic experts for a virtual event, where they escalated their opposition to a provision in the U.S. House-approved reconciliation package imposing a 10-year moratorium on state AI restrictions. Markey said that when the bill emerges in the U.S. Senate, he will try to have it eliminated 'as a violation of the Senate rules for reconciliation.' 'We have to be clear about the provision: rather than proposing any plan to address the risks of AI, [the bill would] say you can't do anything about it. But governors are not going to be happy with that, state legislatures won't be happy with it, and I think increasingly, Republicans and Democrats are not going to be happy with it,' Markey said Wednesday. Alondra Nelson, a former Biden administration science official who is now a professor at Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study, argued that governments cannot wait another decade before pursuing limitations on the use of AI and automated decision-making systems. 'AI systems are already, today, reshaping equality and opportunity in real people's lives. We know that IRS algorithms have disproportionately targeted black taxpayers for audits. We know that facial recognition systems are already leading to wrongful arrests. We know already that insurance companies are using surveillance data that creates discriminatory pricing for different Americans. We know that the uses of AI in health care are sometimes missing cancer in darker-skin patients while detecting it in other patients,' Nelson said. 'These aren't hypothetical future risks. They're certainly not risks that we can wait for 10 years to address. These are documented harms that are happening to members of the American public right now.' The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee added the moratorium language to the budget reconciliation bill. At a markup hearing last month, committee chair Rep. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky said the proposal would implement 'guardrails that protect against state-level AI laws that could jeopardize our technological leadership.' However, the proposal has drawn some bipartisan pushback. Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said Tuesday she did not know the 10-year AI regulation ban was in the bill when she voted to advance it and is 'adamantly OPPOSED to this.' She added that she would not vote in favor of the finalized bill — which cleared the House by a one-vote margin — if it returns from the Senate still containing the moratorium. Forty attorneys general, both Democrats and Republicans, jointly penned a letter to congressional leaders on May 16 announcing opposition to the provision, warning that its impact 'would be sweeping and wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI.' Attorneys general previously called for federal AI governance to focus on 'high risk' systems with emphasis on transparency, testing and enforcement. Attorney general letter on AI moratoriumDownload 'Rather than follow the recommendation from the bipartisan coalition of State Attorneys General, the amendment added to the reconciliation bill abdicates federal leadership and mandates that all states abandon their leadership in this area as well,' the 40 AGs wrote in the letter circulated by the National Association of Attorneys General. 'This bill does not propose any regulatory scheme to replace or supplement the laws enacted or currently under consideration by the states, leaving Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI. Moreover, this bill purports to wipe away any state-level frameworks already in place.' Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell was among the letter's signatories. On Beacon Hill, elected officials have been weighing the potential risks of AI against the economic upsides of a fast-growing industry. Lawmakers and Gov. Maura Healey last year included $100 million in an economic development bond bill to create a Massachusetts AI Hub, which Healey's office said would 'facilitate the application of artificial intelligence across the state's ecosystem.' Lawmakers targeted AI in several bills pending this term, proposing new guardrails around its use in health care decision-making, additional consumer protection measures, a study on greenhouse gas emissions from the electrically demanding technology, and more. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store