If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily)   Humongous telescope will be large enough to observe plants in other solar systems, follow Carrot Top's career   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 115
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

16182 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2004 at 3:09 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-28 07:32:32 PM  
/steals submitter's wallet while he's being punched in the face.
 
2004-12-28 07:37:22 PM  
*picks 5000_gallons_of_toothpaste's pocket.
 
2004-12-28 07:47:17 PM  
Maybe if you connected thousands of telescopes all over the world and feed the data into a computer program that removed all the errors you would be able to see the aphids on those plants.
 
2004-12-28 08:03:48 PM  
Making fun of one of Florida's best again?
 
2004-12-28 10:57:12 PM  
nice headline.
 
2004-12-29 12:23:07 AM  
Oh, good. I can finally check up on all those apple trees I planted on Mars.
 
2004-12-29 12:38:53 AM  
planEt!! planEt!!!
 
2004-12-29 03:13:03 AM  
at last, we can observe the life cycle of mars bars!

//lame
 
2004-12-29 03:13:30 AM  
But I don't want to see the dingleberries on Uranus.
 
2004-12-29 03:14:05 AM  
 
2004-12-29 03:16:43 AM  
man, I hope that headline doesn't get corrected.
 
2004-12-29 03:21:29 AM  
Don't diss Carrot Top. He's probably the only comedian who can also probably beat the shiat out of you.
 
2004-12-29 03:21:31 AM  
Jeebus, what the ATF and DEA won't do to throw a pothead in jail for 10 years. Now they're going after extra-terrestrial deadheads ?
 
2004-12-29 03:23:42 AM  
I can't wait to start a cult based on the observation of EDEN!



gonna eat all the fruit and throw away the rhind...
 
2004-12-29 03:24:47 AM  
so.. theyre getting ready to defend earth from pod people?
 
2004-12-29 03:27:13 AM  
Xenobotany fetishists unite?
 
2004-12-29 03:27:24 AM  
gonna eat all the fruit and throw away the rhind...

I am not Herbert. Yay, Brother.
 
2004-12-29 03:32:19 AM  
Are we going to have a Space/Nasa hat trick today? Let us wait and see...

/ps FRICKIN cool, I like this kinda stuff
 
2004-12-29 03:34:57 AM  
Don't diss Carrot Top. He's probably the only comedian who can also probably beat the shiat out of you.

not to mention that guy makes some serious bank.
 
2004-12-29 03:41:57 AM  
Headline totally caught me off guard. Nice work, submitter. =)
 
2004-12-29 03:43:39 AM  
plants are not planets
 
2004-12-29 03:47:26 AM  
Incorrect headline, but did he planet?

/"Stiff man puttin' my mind in jail and the judge banged the gavel and said no bail"
 
2004-12-29 03:51:05 AM  
When I went to Vegas recently, I was surprised to learn from the numerous big screens on the strip that Carrot Top is, in fact, one of the funniest comedians in Vegas.

 
2004-12-29 03:57:56 AM  
The guy's got some serious pipes now, compared to when he started as a stick-thin dork. Now he's a rich, somewhat pumped-up dork.
 
2004-12-29 03:59:40 AM  
That headline was some funny shiat...
 
2004-12-29 04:00:08 AM  
nottheman: And how do you know that there isn't some 8,000 mile diameter spheroid cannabis indica plant being fed by a supernova hydroponic fountain SOMEWHERE out there? Huh? Well?

/An' Jah say, might I and I feel irie mon, baking under da sun!
 
2004-12-29 04:00:15 AM  
I'm betting that when they say they'll be able to observe planets in other solar systems they'll be looking at gas giants and they'll still be no bigger than a single pixel.
 
2004-12-29 04:07:55 AM  
Chibisuke: We're already looking at nearby stars in relative detail with Hubble. We observe the planets by measuring the "wobble" that the planet exhibits on the star's light pattern and redshift/blueshift, via gravitational distortion (or the "gravity lens" effect).

In other words, the gravity from the planet distorts the star's light ever so slightly (yes, light has SOME mass), and as it passes in front of the star, we're able to see that distortion effect. It's somewhat like one bubble in your beer adsorbing (not aBsorbing!) a smaller bubble next to it. Depending on the distance of the star, we know that said planet passed in front of said star X amount of years ago. It's really simple, yet hopelessly complicated at the same time, since we'll never know whether a planet 40,000LY away is still there, should we decide to visit it. However, given our Earth's track record of existing for hundreds of millions of years, we can make an educated guess that planets are difficult to obliterate -- life, however, is another question.
 
2004-12-29 04:15:15 AM  
urmn.....

...the headline. I don't get it.
 
2004-12-29 04:16:18 AM  
What I'm more interested in is upcoming projects for stellar interferometry. Supposedly we will be able to build three or more (three at least) geosynchronous satellites that can be aimed at a single point in space. By virtue of having three or more individual viewpoints, interferometric satellite imaging would enable us to gain at least 3x resolution images of any given point in space, in addition to providing a slightly more "3D" example of whatever object is in focus. Based on even more complex calculations, we would even be able to more accurately determine the velocity and direction of a given object, possibly including asteroids (since we're so worried about those little bastards).

/geek rant
 
2004-12-29 04:20:52 AM  
ground-based telescopes can be much bigger, which is important because a telescope's light-gathering power is proportional to the square of its diameter

Sure, but you have to worry about atmospheric distortion with ground based telescopes. No matter how large you make them, it's going to be a factor. That's why we wanted a telescope in space to begin with.
 
2004-12-29 04:33:18 AM  
Then they can hook it up to one of those miniDV cams some have over 200x digital zoom, think of how much further we could look by just putting one of those on it.

/joking
 
2004-12-29 04:33:20 AM  
Bhruic: Very true. Too bad Mr. President (or rather, some semi-intelligent being under his control) has decided that Hubble isn't important enough to risk the lives of very dedicated astronauts who are pleading to him to let them repair it.

I mean, sure, the Colombia disaster was indeed a disaster, but if the ever-decadent USSR existed today, they would say "oh well, let's hire some new astronauts and try again. Oh and BTW, we use PENCILS in space, instead of $?M gravity-defying pens." (a joke, in lieu of an official sarcasm punctuator)

We continued shuttle flights after the Challenger exploded (which happened less than a week after its 17th anniversary, if you can call it that). Perhaps we should just learn to stop launching shuttles in February.

Yeah. I get pretty worked up about astro-topics. :)
 
2004-12-29 04:40:22 AM  
addendum: (Colombia exploded less than a week after Challenger's "anniversary." Sorry for any confusion.)

And I guess technically Challenger blew up in late January. Oh well. I'm out for now :)
 
2004-12-29 04:48:03 AM  
abdul: Gravitational lensing is a lot harder to see than just looking at the star's Radial velocity. I'm pretty sure RV data is the stuff used the most right now. Gravitational lensing effects are just way too small.

see this.
It shows the number of planets discovered by each detection method.

p.s. light does NOT have mass according to present theories. Space-time bends in the presence of mass and light follows the geometry of space-time.

p.p.s. IF light had mass though it would sure fix that problem they're having with the pioneer spacecraft...

/geekier rant
//yes this is a challenge. :-)
 
2004-12-29 05:06:23 AM  
bakarocket: So, we meet again! Sugoi! I'm still learning that crazy ol' Japanese. :)

However, Hubble has demonstrated definite effects of gravitational lensing on wide-scale shots, particularly exemplified in this image and story, which details the phenomena.

Light definitely has "speed," as demonstrated by Olaf Roemer, way back in the day, when he realized that Jupiter's eclipses varied slightly. The only possible explanation was that lightspeed was "definitely finite," to coin a phrase.

In a farfetched, Einstein-obeying fashion, we can naturally deduct that light has mass by its inability to escape a black hole. Since none have been directly observed, this is the physics equivalent of a fairy tale.

However, recent studies and experiments utilizing the Bose-Einstein condensate (in which gas supercooled to nearly absolute-zero (-497 deg F, I believe), has shown that light can be slowed to a near stop (and has BEEN stopped, if I recall correctly. I apologize for my laziness in fact-checking this evening).

The mere fact that light can be slowed and/or stopped in a Bose-Einstein condensate atmosphere, where the molecules of a gas cease individual movement and essentially become a "gestalt" of non-autonomous molecules -- hot molecules move quickly, cold molecules move slowly; a Bose-Einstein condensate does not move at all!) proves that light must operate within the traditional boundaries of standard physics, and that gravity, friction and even barely understood quanta must be playing a part on the photons (which have exhibited *wave* functions, in the case of gravity lens distortion, proving that they are not merely particles).

Even without all this, it is obvious that light has mass, since it is forced to obey a speed limit. Sub-atomic particles are not forced to obey such a limit, and blink in and out of existence on a whim. Why else would light be so cautious?

/Challenge accepted. Bring it. :)
 
2004-12-29 05:11:24 AM  
Why did they go out of their way to explain to us morons who have nothing past a sixth-grade education, that the telescope will have a diameter of 83 feet, "making it about as wide as an eight-story building is tall"?

Now, even for some of the measurement-challenged people out there -- let's suppose you have absoluletly NO concept of what a "foot" is -- isn't the bigger challenge actually finding an 8-story building near you so you can forge a more concrete concept in your pea-sized head?
 
2004-12-29 05:19:21 AM  
As another addendum, this article presents the theory that light doesn't have actual mass (but the same article fails to proffer a reasonable explanation for "dark energy", et al), but that it has energy and momentum.

The article further suggests that not only does light lack mass, but it attracts physical objects by itself! Perhaps the author would care to explain why we haven't spiraled into the sun yet? Admittedly, Newton has been more or less proven wrong with his theory of gravity (we haven't spiraled into the sun, so there must be repulsion beyond that which can normally be explained by orbital/centrifugal force), and in lieu of an adequate explanation for dark "whatever," we are at a literal crossroads.

/Merely presenting an alternative opinion, by which to measure my own objectively.
 
2004-12-29 05:27:43 AM  
bakarocket:

p.s. light does NOT have mass according to present theories. Space-time bends in the presence of mass and light follows the geometry of space-time.

According to general relativity, light does indeed have mass, though it's nearly infinitesimal. e=mc2, remember? Anything that has energy has mass, and vice versa. That's what was so revolutionary about Einstein's equation.
 
2004-12-29 05:28:50 AM  
ecmo19741974: Because the average taxpayer in an urban setting isn't capable of measuring 80 feet, but is capable of looking at a building, which generally measures 9-12 feet per story, depending on some esoteric building code.

We can't expect taxpayers to fund science unless we can approximately translate it for their momentary benefit. I refuse to die until we have flying cars and teleportation, but as a direct side-effect, I will be forced to continue paying taxes, funding these very experiments. :)
 
2004-12-29 05:37:19 AM  
SpaceButler: According to general relativity, light does indeed have mass,

Little knowledge is a dangerous thing, pal. That famous E = mc2 thing is basically a conversion factor between mass and energy. In case of photon, it doesn't have a mass (or we tried to detect any mass but couldn't so far).

Imagine this: when you collide electron and positron (positively charged electron), they annihilate and turn themselves into gamma ray photon. The energy of the outgoing photon is basically equivalent to the loss of mass of two electrons (or electron and positron) times speed of light squared (E=mc2). Fortunately photons don't go both way and have both mass and energy.
 
2004-12-29 05:44:24 AM  
SpaceButler: According to general relativity, light does indeed have mass,

Oh one addendum. The concept of 4-vector space (which leads to that E=mc2 thing) is originated from special relativity. General relativity is more about space-time. The former is far simpler to understand. There is a good paperback from Dover...I forgot its title now, but it's about electromagnetisms. It contains a very good description of special relativity as well as E&M...(or you can read the original book on relativity by Einstein himself, but that one was a harder reading, considering how much I hate differential geometry).
 
2004-12-29 05:47:03 AM  
helioquake:

I see. I think I'd better go do some more reading. :)
 
2004-12-29 05:48:38 AM  
Bah! abdul, I hate to say it so bluntly, but you're wrong. The effect used to "observe" planets is not gravitational lensing. Look closely at the "Deep Field" image and you will see what gravitational lensing does. It makes mirror images in rings around areas of high gravitation.

One way extrasolar planets are observed is the Doppler effect. A planets gravity tugs on the star every so slighty away and toward you as it orbits the star. This causes a slight color shift in the star.

The other way, at the moment, is to carefully watch the brightness of a stars and watch for a regular dimming of the star as it is eclipsed (what little can be) by a planet. This is the way multi-star systems were discovered.

Howstuffworks has a page that explains this all pretty good.
 
2004-12-29 05:53:14 AM  
SpaceButler: I see. I think I'd better go do some more reading. :)

Don't be embarrassed. One should never stop learning new things anyway.
 
2004-12-29 05:57:58 AM  
Albinoman: Bah! abdul, I hate to say it so bluntly, but you're wrong.

He's not wrong. There is a gravitational lensing search for exo-terrestial plants. The project is called OGLE.

Initially they were looking for missing matter in the Galaxy (isolated blackholes or more exotic WIMPS, etc).
 
2004-12-29 06:00:43 AM  
SpaceButler: And that theory was published in 1905. Since then, we have made some pretty amazing discoveries (relativity was published in the same generation as aerial flight and the automobile, for Chrissakes!). Most new measurements and discoveries, unfortunately, can be back-calc'ed (with some cooking, I imagine) to vaguely represent Einstein's original theorems. This leaves very little "wiggling room" for a newborn theory to make any headway without contradicting the "gospel" of Einstein's original musings, which could be complete haberdashery. I love that word.

Modern measuring/experimental devices, however, will eventually either disprove or further refine Einstein's original theories, and we will reach a point at which we're forced to either discard his work, or re-examine it in light of some new revelation.

Currently, I personally believe that Einstein was mostly right, but that his ideals of spacetime (further corroborated by Hawking) are the trappings of hardcore Sci-Fi, and that the curvature of spacetime isn't directly the result -- or, conversely, causative of -- gravity and quantum physics themselves. There is some deeper meaning in all this, we just don't have the measuring devices to detect it yet. Dark energy, or whatever it really is, plays a very significant part in this ultimate discovery, and its no wonder that we've been unable to directly measure it. We can't have Creation (tm) reconstructed as easily as a jigsaw puzzle, can we? :)

helioquake: I haven't been keeping up on my "relativistic heavy ion collider" gossip, but didn't they at some point determine that gamma radiation is of higher energy than can be directly produced by colliding heavy gold ions against one another? I seem to recall Hawking mentioning something about exponential radioactivity in this regard (due in part to the difference in the rad spectrum betwixt standard electrons and protons, vs. gamma rays!), but I could definitely be wrong. Most of my knowledge on this facet of the topic is derived from conversation rather than even half-hearted research. :)

In re: your addendum: Another good piece of work, as far as major publishings go, would be "The Elegant Universe," published by PBS. It was highly informative, if not slightly confusing and yet simplified (a sufficiently knowledgeable person may overlook the obvious, an uneducated person cannot hope to get so far), and with enough pop-appeal to interest even the most distant of my partygoers during its initial screening. Most of it dealt with superstring theory, and was far out of its element in regards to real experimentation, but it offers exciting visuals and a pace that even a "Joe Schmoe" intellectual can keep up with. :)

Albinoman: I didn't say that lensing by itself was used to observe planets. If you'll would read my original posts, you'll see that I did mention red/blueshift (the light-equivalent of "doppler" effect, quite literally). I don't mean to offend, but this is *the only* premise of theory on gravitational lensing, as far as I know.

A significantly massive body will always exert some finite pull on any smaller/less massive body (a neutron star will not be influenced by the Earth, obviously, so the size is insignificant). Light is slightly wavered by stars and especially galaxies, which produces the effect that you saw in the "deep field" image (which I did indeed link to earlier in this thread). With these factors added together, it is a simple matter of eyeballing to determine that gravity has indeed produced the "scrunching" effects that are seen in the deep field image.

And, once again, if light lacks mass, then another entirely different explanation for black holes must be reached. I challenge all of you to present one more compelling. :)

/oy, I post too much
 
2004-12-29 06:01:14 AM  
Excellent. The game is on.

abdul: hisashiburi. Okay not really, but hi!

...Hubble has demonstrated definite effects of gravitational lensing on wide-scale shots, particularly exemplified in this image and story, which details the phenomena.

Given, yes, but I didn't say that GL wasn'T in use, I just said that it isn't as popular considering the level of technology required to see GL effects on such a small scale. From my link, 133 planets have been discovered by Radial velocity measurements, 6 from transits, and 2 from microlensing.

In a farfetched, Einstein-obeying fashion, we can naturally deduct that light has mass by its inability to escape a black hole.

I would prefer to argue against this. That idea doesn't obey Einstein at all, I think. As Helioquake said, the E=mc^2 thing is just an equivalence idea. Matter and anti-matter, etc. As to light's inability to escape from inside the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole, it's not because light has mass, it's because space has been severely warped. I bet if you were massless you couldn't get out either.


However, recent studies and experiments utilizing the Bose-Einstein condensate (in which gas supercooled to nearly absolute-zero (-497 deg F, I believe), has shown that light can be slowed to a near stop (and has BEEN stopped, if I recall correctly.

But the speed of light, like the speed of sound, is affected by the density of the medium it's travelling through. BE condensate is super dense isn't it? The slowing done of the speed of light is a natural effect of running it through a BEC.

The mere fact that light can be slowed and/or stopped in a Bose-Einstein condensate atmosphere proves that light must operate within the traditional boundaries of standard physics, and that gravity, friction and even barely understood quanta must be playing a part on the photons (which have exhibited *wave* functions, in the case of gravity lens distortion, proving that they are not merely particles).


True. But that doesn't show that light has mass, just that it obeys and has the properties of both waves and particles. That's not to say that photons ARE both waves and particles, just that they act like both.

(a Bose-Einstein condensate does not move at all!)

Yep it does, just not very much. Absolute zero is a heretofore immpossible goal. We can't get there yet, and according to Dirac, Pauli et al. we never will. Therefore BEC moves. A little.

/geekiness has gone up a notch with the introduction of Schwarzchild.
 
2004-12-29 06:09:26 AM  
abdul: I haven't been keeping up on my "relativistic heavy ion collider" gossip, but didn't they at some point determine that gamma radiation is of higher energy than can be directly produced by colliding heavy gold ions against one another?

I have no idea what you talk about. I'm better at following math, but not when it is described to me by words...[I stopped caring about colliders when the congress canceled super conducting super collider back in 93 -- 94.]

The Elegant Universe," published by PBS.

Oh, my colleagues and I thought it OK. Though I thought I was more confused about string theory after watching parts of it.
 
2004-12-29 06:16:24 AM  
helioquake: Everyone I spoke to about the series disliked it. The GR folks hated it for obvious reasons, the Quantum people thought it was silly and just ignored it, and the string theorists didn't like that someone else was getting all the glory.

Everyone else just didn't understand it.

/Come on....11? At least make it interesting.
//42 dimensions would be awesome.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report