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
 
2004-12-29 06:19:41 AM
Sorry, mustve missed that. Im sure Im not the first to skip around while reading a thread. Just saw the final comments and I thought you were off your rocker.

Jeez, reading along all I can say I thought I was on Slashdot for a minute there.
 
2004-12-29 06:23:31 AM
Bah. He meant industrial plants, like cement mills, refineries, etc. Much bigger then plant plants ;-)

Actually, he might has inadvertently committed truth. Years ago there was discussion of using the gravitational lensing of our own sun as the primary lens of a telescope that could indeed resolve houses on distant planets.

Light curves as it passes through the curved space around the sun. A distant object behind the sun (from our viewpoint)would have its light curved around the edges of the suns' disk, and the focal point of this light is a little beyond the orbit of Mars. If you built a focal plane imager ('bout 50 miles across or so)out in that orbit, you could in fact assemble the image. The theoretical resolution obtainable could image houses on planets in nearby star system, and continents on planets halfway across the galaxy.
 
2004-12-29 06:26:30 AM
You know what's really funny? I just did a google search for "string theory experimental evidence", told it that I felt lucky and got this...

Alert: Document contains no data


/Morrisette irony?
 
2004-12-29 06:26:57 AM
bakarocket: Everyone I spoke to about the series disliked it.

It can't be everyone. I said it was OK for jocks and poets. :-) Quite frankly I wouldn't take anything like that too seriously anyway. To learn science (IMHO) there is only one way: learh through the description of mathematics. Since there wasn't much math in that program, I'll just treat it as an entertainment and that was ok for that. Beats watching FOX news entertainment if you ask me.
 
2004-12-29 06:27:21 AM
OK, we've just had a failure of the primary italics closure system. Standby to eject the core.....
 
2004-12-29 06:40:33 AM
bakarocket: To be sure, I don't know of a single planet that has been re-identified (and further studied), the discovery of which was initially facilitated by gravitational lensing. For the most part, I believe we are only able to detect approximately Jupiter-sized planets, although the actual size could be much smaller if the planet were made of rock or denser material; and of course gas giants aren't likely to habilitate life as we prefer to appreciate it.

I don't think we can move further on the spacetime/matter idea at this point without getting into esoteric randomness, so I won't go there. :)

BE condensate is decidedly not denser than a Neutron star, and yet we're able to detect those easily. If light were absorbed (not aDsorbed!) as easily into a neutron star as it were into a BEC, how would it have escaped to reach us, for us to know it were there in the first place?

The fact that light behaves as both wave and particle exhibits our continuing cluelessness about the subject itself. Either we have yet to measure it properly in its entirety (which is approaching doubt, what with the BECs and Roemer's original measurements providing nearly limitless evidence to the contrary), or we simply haven't figured out another way to quantify the data that we receive when we DO measure light. Perhaps there is a happy medium between wave and particle that no other quanta has shown us yet.

Absolute-zero is indeed impossible. We create a BEC at *nearly* absolute-zero, but not quite. If we could manufacture a temperature of absolute-zero, a perfect vacuum would be possible. The theoretical complications of a perfect vacuum would currently undo the entire universe, since we have no way to explain "infinite" anything, gravity, pressure or otherwise. A BEC may move in some very small way, but it is indistinguishable in standard measurements from the very small movements that molecules undergo immediately prior to forming the BEC.

We have to assume a BEC moves (sorry for the apparent contradiction, I got ahead of myself), otherwise we once again reach the theoretical impossibility of infinity. So this, if nothing else, is a matter exclusively up to honest debate. I appreciate your challenge, but I must retire very soon.

helioquake: The RHIC, residing in Brookhaven, NY, is titled "relativistic heavy ion collider," because it is a particle accelerator that zooms stripped gold ions ("heavy" ions), to about ~99%C (nearly the speed of light, for the rest of you), and collides them together once they've reached that velocity. Supposedly, a heavy ion would never ever collide with a similar ion at such speed, save for perhaps in early pre-galactic superevents (think 10 to 10x10^10 seconds or minutes after Planck-time became old-hat)

As a result, it was suggested that this could re-create the "big bang," in a smaller scale, and that new, as-yet-unheard-of quarks could form, creating "strangelets" (yes, a real term), that could voraciously devour matter through a simple mechanism of converting positively charged particles to negative (can't say how that would work exactly), recharging themselves, and continuing onward until the initial energy was reached, and the effect naturally cancelled itself out. I, for one, believe the Big Bang has yet to cancel itself out, so that may give an idea as to the mechanism these "strangelets" supposedly operate on. This is all quite theoretical science, of which I have picked up only bits and parts so far. I hope you won't use the entire salt-shaker in interpreting it.

In other words, that is all a BS theory, and thousands of such collisions have taken place under our own tax-funded microscopes/spectrographs/etc... They educate us further on how particle collisions can explain the physics of what happened moments after Planck's constant became obsolete, so to speak, although it is clearly impossible to really define what actually happened in that timeframe.

Now I really should consider getting to bed.

helioquake: I only suggested that "The Elegant Universe" was a layman's video. There is no need for the terms "jock" or "poet", both being mutually exclusive. You may want to be careful in mentioning them simultaneously howver, as they will collectively wither and destroy human civilization. :)
 
2004-12-29 06:43:00 AM
helioquake: You're probably right. I learned a very little bit of the mathematics of String Theory in a seminar course I took once, and it was a lot easier to understand the theory then than it was when I watched the show.
The math was farked up.
Seriously. Farked. up.


/liked the show for all the pretty pictures...still very suspicious of the theory...maybe I'm too stupid to understand it (a very good possibility), but I'm still the old-fashioned sort that needs evidence and stuff.
 
2004-12-29 06:53:53 AM
abdul: There is no need for the terms "jock" or "poet"

Old habit from my TA days in college. Sorry.

I think now I know what you were referring. It was about creating a micro-blackhole in a laboratory. Well, all I thought about it then was "cool if they can self-sustain it" and that's as much as I cared to think about it. Never followed up (too nerdy and trekkish to me). So I've got no comment here.

I'll be at work in a few hours, so I'm signing off. Have fun, guys.
 
2004-12-29 06:57:07 AM
abdul: On GRish space-time, agreed. Let's leave that alone. But the BEC thing is fun.

p.s. this'll be quick so sleep can come soon.


BE condensate is decidedly not denser than a Neutron star, and yet we're able to detect those easily. If light were absorbed (not aDsorbed!) as easily into a neutron star as it were into a BEC, how would it have escaped to reach us, for us to know it were there in the first place?

I like this idea. A very good point. Can't come up with anything really good to argue this because I don't know enough about BECs. Neutron stars I'm okay with though.

A neutron star never absorbs the light it emits (or light that comes from other sources) because the light never slows down to zero velocity. It would (theoretically--I'm guessing) slow down inside the star for sure, but because

a) there is no Schwarzchild radius in/on a neutron star, and
b) the light never reaches zero velocity,

the light will always, eventually, escape the star and come travelling to Earth where it then is used to dry out my most recent crop.

Also, I'm not really sure there's a mechanism for absorption in a neutron star (or for that matter in a BEC, but like I said, I don't know anything about BECs...yet).
I mean, there're no atoms with electron orbits and absorption potential except on the very outer surface of the star.


/wishes he had a crop
//researching BEcs right now
 
2004-12-29 07:02:56 AM
helioquake: Myself as well. I have to go, RIGHT NOW, if I intend to continue participating in the human race. It was quite exciting to discuss this matter, however, and hopefully we'll meet again. Maybe if you decide to email me at some later date, you'll note that the "hot" in my email addy, in profile, has changed to the letter "g." I know you'll figure it out. :) Luckily, spam providers probably will not. I like to reveal my email to anybody who significantly challenges me (even if I may do so in a puerile non-riddle), and you have certainly earned that respect, as has:...

bakarocket: And finally, now that I've looked it up, thank you once again for teaching me hisashiburi. I will be using it this morning to impress the g/f, who will no doubt love me forever for at least trying to learn to speak her favorite tongue in addition to possessing it... sorry. I probably took that too far.

/Um... Ja mata ne!
 
2004-12-29 07:12:01 AM
bakarocket: Last moment reply... and I mean *last* moment.

I agree, a neutron star probably doesn't necessarily absorb the light, but due to its density it must do *something* to it, as a function of its incredible density/gravity, pursuant to various other theories (none of which are laws, including Newton's), regarding the behavior of any moving object in space. I am forced to conclude that light does have some mass, otherwise it wouldn't be very interesting at all. Not very scientific, but it makes me happy. So we may be seeing an example of light actually completing a half/three-quarter (or whatever %) orbit of a body before escaping orbit once again, much like we do with probes (gravitational acceleration), which obviously would deflect it to a direction we could no longer detect directly. Just a far-fetched theory, is all. Whatever light we do observe has certainly undergone a journey -- straight, curved or otherwise. :)

Thank you both once again for the workout, but I really absolutely have to leave right now. :)
 
2004-12-29 07:15:32 AM
abdul, be polite and say Ohisashiburi. Remember, the Japanese are all about politeness!

/ganbatte ne!
 
2004-12-29 07:19:05 AM
abdul: That's as good a reason as any. :-)



/ima nemutte kudasai.
//mata
 
2004-12-29 07:31:40 AM
w00t, maybe they can tell me what the plant life is like in the Alpha Centauri system. I plan to retire there in 2020.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2004-12-29 07:48:42 AM
The surface temperature of a young neutron star is millions of degrees or higher, dropping to hundreds of thousands over millenia or longer, so basically they look white or bluish-white. The surface is normal matter, not superfluid neutrons or any other exotic substance.

Light is bent around a neutron star. Go to Greg Egan's black hole page and pretend the black disk is 50% larger and so blindingly bright that your eyes burn out immediately.
 
2004-12-29 07:55:24 AM
That's because his career is ***OUT OF THIS WORLD***

CARROT TOP 4 EVA
 
2004-12-29 08:10:13 AM
For those of you who are really interested in this stuff (Disgod, abdul, etc), check out the Terrestrial planet finder homepage.
 
2004-12-29 08:55:45 AM
God after listening to abdul, bakarocket and the others I finally know how my girlfriend feels when I try to explain the OSI model or TCP/IP to her...sheesh, I'm done doing that
 
2004-12-29 09:04:26 AM
I tach astronomy and i am always surprisd how oftn
popl tll m about th distant plants.
 
2004-12-29 09:07:00 AM
Bad mods. You know you left the typo there on purpose. Shame.
 
2004-12-29 09:10:22 AM
carrot top? jeez. hey, 1995 called - they want their humor back. why don't we start writing headlines that bash judge ito and/or the macarena while we're at it.
 
2004-12-29 09:11:49 AM
While we're picking nits, this is the only "solar system" there is, thanks to the fact that our sun is named Sol. Other systems would be more accurately referred to as "star systems."

/bergeek
 
2004-12-29 09:21:29 AM
Who is Carrot Top?

/Hey, at least I heard of Susan Sontag :-)
 
2004-12-29 09:34:33 AM
Great! Now we can finally get rid of the excuse that we don't have a big enough telescope whenever I ask why there have never been any pictures of the lunar rover and American flag we left behind on the moon during our little visit there.

/yeah right...like we really went there
 
2004-12-29 10:06:06 AM
This thread makes my head hurt :-(

Whatever happened to the project that was supposed to put several hubble type telescopes out at L2 to give you an interferometer tlescope with a supposed baseline of 1km? That was meant to be abole to spot cloud formations on extrasolar planets
 
2004-12-29 10:08:20 AM
ZAZ: I said that. Well, the outer surface part anyway. But how does help me in my battle against Abdul? We all know what neutron stars are; we're trying to debate the nature of light. Well, we were until Abdul went to bed. So I'm debating myself on the nature of light.


Hmmm, that's pretty stupid.


/trying to win against myself.
//losing handily
 
2004-12-29 10:10:53 AM
ZAZ:
p.s. That page rocks! I've never seen a model of the light horizon around a black hole.
 
2004-12-29 10:22:17 AM


Feed me Seymore!!!
 
2004-12-29 10:23:42 AM
Keep an eye on these plants?



/To the shore....
 
2004-12-29 10:25:07 AM
At 83 feet it's almost as wide as the length of 6 cars handed out by Oprah on one of her TV shows.
 
2004-12-29 10:36:21 AM
....stars are pretty...
 
2004-12-29 10:37:23 AM
Carrot Top played here back in the late 90's. Good show. High energy set, prop comic.
/shrug
 
2004-12-29 10:38:15 AM
quiefNpea: Keep an eye on these plants?

they made a movie to that book!?!?!
i had no idea!!

/love that book, loves wyndham books in general. would have man-sechs....nevermind.
 
2004-12-29 10:54:27 AM
I'm waiting for a big telescope that can see in windows on other planets. Now that would be cool.
 
2004-12-29 10:57:00 AM
abdul: I quit reading after a few of your comments because what you were writing was almost 100% wrong.

Gravitational lensing is not used to detect planets at all. We use wobbles in the radial velocity to find planets. And your view of gravitational lensing as a red/blue shift of the spectrum of objects is wrong. Gravitational lensing is the distortion of shapes and brightnesses of background objects by foreground mass.

Upcoming interferometry missions won't have geosynchronous satellites. Probably the satellites will be at L2.

Light has no mass. No conventional theory says light has mass. There has never been any evidence that light has mass. In the 100 years since we have had Einstein's relativity theory, no experiment has proved it wrong. It is what we use to this day to describe gravity. It is certainly incomplete but has yet to be supplanted by a more complete theory.

All particles are forced to obey the cosmic speed limit, not just light. I'll state it again: light does not have mass (energy and momentum, yes... mass no).
 
2004-12-29 11:03:32 AM
A series of questions that have been bugging me for the astro physcisits here...


I'll start with this one, is it still common belief in the physics realm that gravitational forces from a mass has influence on all other matter in the universe?
 
2004-12-29 11:05:04 AM
A friend of mine's friend who is a girl (deep breath) was once propositioned for sex by Carrot Top. He offered her $5000.
 
2004-12-29 11:06:42 AM
Oh, she declined both offers. Needless to say, she can't stand the guy.

Is anyone surprised he has to go to such lengths?
 
2004-12-29 11:19:16 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."

Now, THIS is why we need to restart the lunar landing project. We could build the biggest, most bad-ass ground-based telescope there, taking advantage of both the Moon's lack of an atmosphere and low gravity.
 
2004-12-29 11:29:50 AM
frank_drebin: Light is massless yes, Gravitational lensing is used to detect planets, yes.

See
here and
here.

Both are mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
 
2004-12-29 11:33:38 AM
Omega Ohm: Yep. Still common. Necessary in fact. It's pretty much what holds all these silly theories together.

Of course, none of the stuff we see in the deep dark reaaches of the Universe does what it should, but don't let that bother you.


Mouser: I couldn't agree with you more. But you still have to get the stuff up there, power it, maintain it, and have someone make the coffee. Not a small task.

/sweeping generalizations are fun.
 
2004-12-29 11:52:55 AM
bakarocket --
"Yep. Still common. Necessary in fact. It's pretty much what holds all these silly theories together."


So, what happens to gravity when the distance between two objects has become so great, that the rate of comsmological expansion between them exceeds the speed of light?
 
2004-12-29 12:17:03 PM
Omega Ohm: Dunno. Better ask God that one.

Seriously, um, well, okay.

Easy answer: Action at a distance. THat means that Gravity works instantaneously with no propagation speed. But no one knows if that is true. Some people say that gravity has a particle that transmits gravitional forces (the graviton) just like electrons and protons and light transmit electro-magnetic forces. But no one really knows how fast the graviton goes, some say it's about 10^22 m/s or about 10^13 times the speed of light.

Hard answer:
If the rate of expansion exceeds the speed of light, we're in singularity territory. That's what physicists call something that they don't know how to explain. For instance, the beginning of the universe was purportedly a singularity. A Black Hole is a singularity. We don't know what goes on inside, and our present physics can't give us a theory beyond..."Um, okay, well, I think the light won't...um, come out?"

The present expansion of the Universe (Hubble Constant) is reckoned to be between 50 and 100km/s/Megalightyear. That means for every million light years away from Earth (or anywhere for that matter) an object is, stuff moves away at 55km/s more. (I can tell you know this from your post.)

So, at the edges of the universe we have a horizon that we can't see beyond because the expansion is faster than light...


SO if Action at a Distance is correct, there is no problem. gravitational attraction from objects outside our horizon DOES effect us.

AND if gravitons exist, also there's no problem because the velocity of gravitons is way higher than the speed of light.


/I don't understand the math either, I just pretend.
//In fact, no one understands the math, we all just pretend.
 
2004-12-29 12:41:33 PM
 
2004-12-29 12:50:51 PM
Maybe, I'm a moron, but if light has no mass how is it "trapped" by the gravity of a black hole?
 
2004-12-29 12:55:05 PM
yes ... but will it be strong enough to find an ounce of decency within a republican's soul? or a shred of brains within Bush's head?
 
2004-12-29 01:02:51 PM
BiffTWC
Maybe, I'm a moron, but if light has no mass how is it "trapped" by the gravity of a black hole?


Light has energy and by E=mc^2, that energy corresponds to some mass. Energy and mass are equivalent.
 
2004-12-29 01:06:40 PM
bakarocket:

Easy answer: Action at a distance. THat means that Gravity works instantaneously with no propagation speed. But no one knows if that is true. Some people say that gravity has a particle that transmits gravitional forces (the graviton) just like electrons and protons and light transmit electro-magnetic forces. But no one really knows how fast the graviton goes, some say it's about 10^22 m/s or about 10^13 times the speed of light.


Here is an interesting article with reasonable looking explanations on the speed of gravity. Always a good subject to get the physics prof distracted.

BiffTWC:

Maybe, I'm a moron, but if light has no mass how is it "trapped" by the gravity of a black hole?

One answer: The radius of a black hole may be infinite.
Second answer: It is escaping, but it will take forever to do so, because the rate of the passage of time has dropped to zero due to the time distortion caused by the gravitational field.
 
2004-12-29 01:08:42 PM
expansion of answer

Second answer: It is escaping, but it will take forever to do so, because the rate of the passage of time has dropped to zero due to the time distortion caused by the gravitational field.

To an observer outside the event horizon, that is. Inside it's turtles all the way down.
 
2004-12-29 01:09:51 PM
now if they would only make a microscope powerful enough to locate Ashlee Simpsons talent.
 
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