The science of leap day

Feb 29, 2024

3 min

John Gizis


The arrival of a leap year brings with it myths, legends and superstitions about its origin. John Gizis, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Delaware, takes part in a Q&A to share the truth and science behind this “extra” day added to the Gregorian calendar every four years.


Why do we have leap day?

Unfortunately, the amount of time the earth takes to go around the sun is not exactly 365 days. It’s off by about ¼ of a day each year.


It would be hard to have a calendar for 365 ¼ days. When was the extra day added to the calendar?

Julius Caesar introduced the Julian calendar in 46 B.C., which added one extra day every four years. Of course, the year is not exactly 365 ¼ days either, so after a while, that extra time built up. Pope Gregory XIII established the Gregorian calendar [the current calendar] in 1582 to correct the fact that the calendar had gotten off by about 12 days, enough that it was noticeable.


How was it noticeable?

The seasons were gradually shifting, so that what we think of as summertime in the northern hemisphere had gradually become more like autumn. The shortest day of the year is Dec. 21. Basically, the shortest day of the year drifted and eventually was in early December.


How did they institute the reforms?

First, they skipped a couple of weeks, so they returned to the original calendar lining up with the sun and stars as it’s supposed to. Then they instituted a couple of rules to keep this from happening again. Leap year happens in years divisible by four, but every 100 years, there is not a leap year. However, every 400 years, you do have a leap year. This happened in the year 2000. And the next time it will happen most of us won’t be around — 2100 will not be a leap year.


What would happen if the extra day had not been introduced?

If we didn’t have it at all, we would be off by ¼ of a day every year. The seasons would completely shift through the calendar and anything that ties to the seasons would be affected, like farming. It would create havoc with the time to plant and to harvest crops, for example. You also would lose the meaning behind sayings such as “April showers bring May flowers.”


Multiply the 2,000 years since it was introduced by ¼ day per year, and that would be 500 days we would have shifted over history. In the northern hemisphere January would have become summer, then gone back to being winter, then shifted off again.


Does adding the extra day make up the difference exactly and keep the astral year in sync with the calendar year?

Yes, but this relates to a bigger issue. Astronomers want time to match up so that the positions of the stars match up year after year. Because the length of day changes slightly over time, astronomers sometimes would like to add an extra “leap second” to keep the stars in sync with our time system. But adding a second is an annoyance for computer and tech systems.


Did you know that people born on leap day are sometimes called “leaplings?” According to Google, in 2020, there were about 5 million people with Feb. 29 birthdays. Do you think they have any advantages or disadvantages to being born on this day?

No, I didn’t know that, and I know someone who refused to be induced on that day because she didn’t want confusion for her child, although I think it might be cool. After all, in this day and age, everyone always knows how old they are.


To set up an interview with Gizis, visit his profile and click on the contact button.

Connect with:
John Gizis

John Gizis

Professor, Physics and Astronomy

Prof. Gizis focuses his research on improving the understanding of stars and brown dwarfs (failed stars).

Brown Dwarfs and BinariesCool StarsStarsSolar SystemCosmology

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Delaware

1 min

From field to festival: How pumpkins grew into an autumn symbol

Type “Halloween” into your phone’s emoji search bar, and you’ll get three icons: a skull, a ghost, and a jack-o'-lantern. The skull and ghost make sense — but how did the pumpkin carve out such a starring role in our fall celebrations? Cindy Ott, associate professor of history and material culture at the University of Delaware, has the answer. She literally wrote the book on pumpkins, exploring how this humble orange gourd grew from a survival crop to a powerful symbol of American identity and nostalgia. Today, pumpkins dominate the fall season — from pumpkin pies and soups to the ever-popular pumpkin spice latte. Ott’s research uncovers how the pumpkin’s transformation from practical produce to cultural icon reflects broader shifts in American history, values, and traditions. To schedule an interview with Professor Ott, contact MediaRelations@udel.edu.

1 min

Soaring gold prices could bring big rewards – and even bigger risks

This week, gold prices surged to record highs, reshaping both the financial and geopolitical landscape. The University of Delaware’s Saleem Ali can explain the potential environmental, social and economic ripple effects of this gold rush and the opportunities and risks it creates. He says a controlled release of global gold reserves could help ease market pressure and mitigate the negative impacts. Ali, a professor of energy and the environment, can discuss the following main points: • The record gold price (which dipped slightly today) has implications for new gold mining projects becoming more financially attractive which could have environmental and social implications in those areas. • Major gold trading hubs like Switzerland and Dubai will need to be more vigilant as gold will become more attractive for the illicit economy for commodities. • We have major global bank reserves of gold even though the gold standard is no longer used to back currency. Some of these reserves could be liquidated to reduce pressure and negative externalities. Such a controlled release of gold reserves could help to manage the price rise. Ali also serves on the Independent Governance Committee for the Dubai Multicommodity Center, which manages all of the gold coming into the United Arab Emirates. To reach Ali directly and arrange an interview, visit his profile and click on the “connect” button. Interested reporters can also send an email to MediaRelations@udel.edu.

6 min

Taking discoveries to the real world for the benefit of human health

It takes about a decade and a lot of money to bring a new drug to market—between $1 billion to $2 billion, in fact. University of Delaware inventor Jason Gleghorn wants to change that. At UD, Gleghorn is developing leading-edge microfluidic tissue models. The devices are about the size of two postage stamps, and they offer a faster, less-expensive way to study disease and to develop pharmaceutical targets. These aren’t tools he wants to keep just for himself. No, Gleghorn wants to put the patented technology he’s developing in the hands of other experts, to advance clinical solutions in women’s health, maternal-fetal health and pre-term birth. His work also has the potential to improve understanding of drug transport in the female reproductive tract, placenta, lung and lymph nodes. Gleghorn, an associate professor of biomedical engineering, was named to the first cohort of Innovation Ambassadors at UD, as part of the University’s effort to foster and support an innovation culture on campus. Below, he shares some of what he’s learned about translating research to society. Q: What is the problem that you are trying to address? Gleghorn: A lot of disease has to do with disorganization in the body’s normal tissue structure. My lab makes microfluidic tissue models, called organ-on-a-chip models, that have super-tiny channels about the thickness of a human hair, where we can introduce very small amounts of liquid, including cells, to represent an organ in the human body. This can help us study and understand the mechanism of how things work in the body (the biology) or help us do things like drug screening to test therapeutic compounds for treating disease. And while these little microfluidic devices can do promising things, the infrastructure required to make the system work often restricts their use to high-end labs. We want to democratize the techniques and technology so that nonexperts can use it. To achieve this, we changed the way we make these devices, so that they are compatible with standard manufacturing, which means we can scale them and create them much easier. Gleghorn: One of the problems with drug screening, in general, is that animal model studies don’t always represent human biology. So, when we’re using animal models to test new drugs — which have been the best tool we have available — the results are not always apples to apples. Fundamentally, our microfluidic devices can model what happens in humans … we can plug in the relevant human components to understand how the mechanism is working and then ask questions about what drives those processes and identify targets for therapies to prevent the dysfunction. Q: What is innovative about this device? Gleghorn: The innovation part is this modularity — no one makes these devices this way. The science happens on the tiny tissue model insert, which is sandwiched between two pieces of clear acrylic. This allows us to watch what’s happening on the tissue model insert in real time. Meanwhile, the outer shell’s clamshell design provides flexibility: if we’re studying lung tissue and we want to study the female reproductive tract, all we do is unscrew the outer shell and insert the proper tissue model that mimics the female reproductive tract and we’re off. We’ve done a lot of the engineering to make it very simple to operate and use, and adaptable to common lab tools that everyone has, to eliminate the need for financial investment in things like specialized clean rooms, incubators and pumps, etc., so the technology can be useful in regular labs or easily deployable to far-flung locations or countries. With a laser cutter and $500 worth of equipment, you could conceivably mass manufacture these things for maternal medicine in Africa, for example. Democratizing the technology so it is compatible and useful for even an inexperienced user aligns with the mission of my lab, which focuses on scaling the science and the innovation faster, instead of only a few specialized labs being a bottleneck to uncovering new mechanisms of disease and the development of therapies. We patented this modularity, the way to build these tiny microfluidic devices and the simplicity of how it's used as a tool set, through UD’s Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships (OEIP). Q: How have you translated this work so far? Gleghorn: To date, we've taken this microfluidic system to nine different research labs across seven countries and four continents — including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Belgium and South Africa. These labs are using our technology to study problems in women’s health and collecting data with it. We’re developing boot camps where researchers can come for two or three days to the University of Delaware, where we teach them how to use this device and they take some back with them. From a basic science perspective, there is high enthusiasm for the power of what it can tell you and its ease of use. As engineers, we think it's pretty cool that many other people are using our innovations for new discoveries. Q: What support and guidance have you received from the UD innovation ecosystem? Gleghorn: To do any of this work, you need partners that have various expertise and backgrounds. UD’s Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships has built a strong team of professionals with expertise in different areas, such as how do you license or take something to patent, how do you make connections with the business community? OEIP is home to Delaware’s Small Business Development Center, which can help you think about business visibility in terms of startups. Horn Entrepreneurship has built out impressive programs for teaching students and faculty to think entrepreneurially and build mentor networks, while programs like the Institute for Engineering Driven Health and the NSF Accelerating Research Translation at UD provide gap funding to be able to do product development and to take the work from basic prototype to something that is more marketable. More broadly in Delaware is the Small Business Administration, the Delaware Innovation Space and regional grant programs and small accelerators to help Delaware innovators. Q: How have students in your lab benefited from engaging in innovation? Gleghorn: Undergraduate students in my lab have made hundreds of these devices at scale. We basically built a little manufacturing facility, so we have ways to sterilize them, track batches, etc. We call it “the foundry.” In other work, graduate students are engineering different components or working on specific system designs for various studies. The students see collaborators use these devices to discover new science and new discoveries. That's very rewarding as an engineer. Additionally, my lab focuses on building solutions that are useful in the clinic and commercially viable. As a result, we've had two grad students spin out companies related to the work we've been doing in the lab. Q: How has research translation positively impacted your work? Gleghorn: I started down this road maybe five years ago, seriously trying to think about how to translate our research findings. Being an entrepreneur, translating technology — it's a very different way to think about your work. And so that framework has really permeated most of the research that I do now and changed the way I think about problems. It has opened new opportunities for collaboration and for alternate sources of funding with companies. This has value in terms of taking the research that you're doing fundamentally and creating a measurable impact in the community, but it also diversifies your funding streams to work on important problems. And different viewpoints help you look at the work you do in new ways, challenging you to define the value proposition, the impact of your work.

View all posts