Baby Astronaut
Senior Members-
Posts
677 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Baby Astronaut
-
What about this? Lene Vestergaard Hau (born in Vejle, Denmark, on November 13, 1959) is a Danish physicist. In 1999, she led a Harvard University team who succeeded in slowing a beam of light to about 17 metres per second, and, in 2001, was able to momentarily stop a beam. She was able to achieve this by using a superfluid. Also from NPR. Scientists manage to stop light, hold it trapped in a cloud of chilled atoms known as a Bose Einstein condensate, and then release it in a second cloud a short distance away. We'll talk about the work and its potential applications in information processing. Does anyone know if they stopped a single photon, or just the light itself but the photons kept moving. If the former, then saving a halted photon "for later" surely counts as the light having existence while unable to move at c?
-
How far can a second leap? Current record holder of the Second Olympics clocked in at just over 299,792 kilometers. The loser complained of a hazard along the way, an ultracold atomic gas spill.
-
Automating the roads - (split from Flying Cars thread)
Baby Astronaut replied to ski_power's topic in Engineering
Check out an investigation by FactCheck.org Each year the railroads are required to submit reports to the federal Surface Transportation Board, the regulatory body that took over some of the functions of the old Interstate Commerce Commission. The annual reports of each railroad are public information, available on the STB's Web site. Buried amid all the facts about the number of railroad ties replaced, cubic yards of ballast placed and the cost of new locomotives, the railroads also report totals for the number of gallons of diesel fuel consumed and tons of freight moved. The government doesn't tally up those figures anymore, but the Association of American Railroads does. And now, we have done the same. -
Mapping the universe in "real time"?
Baby Astronaut replied to Baby Astronaut's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
I get what you're saying. But asteroids would be ignored by large-scale mapping. So would planets. And individual stars as well. As an example, we can't successfully predict weather on the scale of gusts of updraft winds in one's back yard, however we can track small weather patterns like the day's forecast in a small town. Yet it remains possible to ignore both those and still get meaningful results from predicting a region's overall by the year such as the Antarctic, deserts, ocean currents, etc. In the same way, just focus on larger bodies such as galaxies, clusters, super clusters, etc. -
Mapping the universe in "real time"?
Baby Astronaut replied to Baby Astronaut's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
I don't believe the computational resources would be that severe. There are the Morgan and Wright calculators (thanks Martin) for determining a few essentials, like the "now" and "then" distances from us, and which hardly use any resources, so imagine a more complex version of each. We'd also need a software that lets us plug in the orbits of the larger bodies, such as galaxies and ignore the positions of their individual stats. Another software that lets us plug in the life expectancy of those larger bodies, and eliminate the ones that are likely "dead". And if we're aware of mergers and collisions we'd input those and whatever approximate change in direction/orbits the events would cause. Remember, we're focusing on large scale, because we only want to compare the visible universe with the present one, and only visually. To increase its usefulness, the software can let the user right-click on a system to compare different variables between its "now" and "then" states. -
Such a definition is possible. Really, anything ca be defined if we abandon preconceptions a bit. Problem with using this definition is that it uses the word life, so perhaps it's not as good candidate for defining life.
-
Black hole's gravity tears objects into bits?
Baby Astronaut replied to Baby Astronaut's topic in Relativity
I thought the smallest black holes would be the type to appear in the Large Hadron Collider? How did you arrive at the conclusion that it's possible to tow a black hole? -
But surely they can't have done so without first starting either with genetic material extracted from a real living organism, or from a pre-existing virus. If I'm correct, then it's still far different because we're able to manufacture a computer without the need of a pre-existing computer, and a digital virus without the need of a pre-existing digital virus.
-
In an indirect way, gravity is helping cause the pressure. If you're trapped under one million empty 1-liter bottles pressing down on you, the severity of your predicament would be less on the moon than on Earth, due to gravity. Of course, there's no air on the moon so that's all a matter of perspective.
-
Black hole's gravity tears objects into bits?
Baby Astronaut replied to Baby Astronaut's topic in Relativity
Your analogy makes sense, except I think the line is being forced along an ever-tightening circular path, and this non-straightness would cause the line to break from the pressure of bending. For if space is warped by gravity, I would imagine that matter is forcibly warped along its path as well. -
The scary thing is the creator of any new virus would seem to be the affected lifeform itself, if what you say is true. In that manner, it's nothing like a computer virus, whose existence is never spawned by a computer, but rather a slick geek behind the monitor. How then, did its first ancestor get the energy to put a gun to the cook's head? If a virus doesn't produce its own energy, does it at least borrow or extract it?
-
I can't speak for Martin of course, but it seems clear that Martin has said lots against the singularity, and nothing for it. Even within the part you quoted it's apparently treating the Big Bang singularity as misinformation or inconclusive.
-
But they can do more than a rock can, even if the rock were helped by a cell. A virus is not alive only due to formal classification. But informally far as nature is concerned, a virus might well be alive, even if just very slightly. That it has a "borrowed" metabolism I don't think is a good enough reason to deny it the life classification. Maybe it runs on life fumes. However, this problem might be related to the same kind of confusion when science has its own meanings for words that are different from the general use, such as "theory". In other words, maybe a virus is alive by general language, but under scientific definition it's not alive, but they're not really talking about the same exact thing.
-
Mapping the universe in "real time"?
Baby Astronaut replied to Baby Astronaut's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
Not quite. Perhaps if we worked together? A real time universe map scaled to the largest systems doesn't have to represent NOW this very second, even last year's positions or the prior decade's or even the last several thousand years would be good enough to visualize the state of the as of yet non-visible universe (can't see light that hasn't reached us). -
Mapping the universe in "real time"?
Baby Astronaut replied to Baby Astronaut's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
Well on the local scale we know it's not. That's close enough to real time. And it's highly likely that on all scales, if the cosms were to be arranged into their "now" configurations, all the inconsistent orientations and formations of various systems wouldn't interlock to become a single cosmic grid of neatness. So to answer, I don't believe the universe is isotropic on any scale, except if perhaps you mean the quantum scale. And I'm not even sure about that. But what do I know? -
Thanks for responses. This might have been addressed by Hawking previously, but doesn't the idea of radiation exiting a place where not even light can escape go against that very reasoning?
-
Mapping the universe in "real time"?
Baby Astronaut replied to Baby Astronaut's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
If we bypass the galactic scale and just go with superclusters (Wikipedia page), it'll probably be feasible. Also check out the galaxy filaments image. On the grander scales, we're told about great voids and whatnot. But if you think about it, since we're looking at a relatively "all at once" picture of things, how accurate is it to say that voids of such magnitude are scattered throughout our universe? I mention this because every several million light years away from us becomes a much different era of time, and the voids we see now might in fact not be real. The picture of the universe we end up with might be patches of newer formations joined with patches of older formations into a resulting shape that is far different than the shape would've been if each of its areas were mapped in its true position. Like I said, astronomers may account for such time differences when mapping the universe, but again I'm not sure. -
Does anyone know of a diagram of the observable universe shown in real time, like how it exists if we account for galaxy movements and cosmic expansion? Or of any group attempting to calculate where galaxies and super clusters would be today and give us the projected approximations, rather than mapping the universe in observational/past time? I believe we might be able to glean some new information about the universe if we also looked at it's modern state, rather than just its (often, eons ancient) past history. Could be that we see an unforeseen pattern emerge, or a surprising connection between events. I also believe people would like to see it just for curiosity's sake. Wouldn't you? It obviously can't be entirely accurate, for who knows the number of supernovas and unknown variables, but at least the death of many stars can be approximated. I'd imagine the present day universe, in real time, would be a lot emptier perhaps? The reason for me inquiring about this subject is because a lot of times you hear about how "presently", the universe expansion is accelerating at this increasing rate and one day most of it will pass go, and I'm left wondering if that hasn't already occurred eons ago. Get my drift? What if mostly everything has already passed the cosmological horizon? It's not something we might be waiting to happen, it could've happened waaaaay back in cosmic history. Unless I'm wrong because I'm not sure if they do calculate forward to make up for light speed's far journey in providing us glimpses into the past. But anyway, I'd like to see an approximately "real time" universe. And I'm sure others here would too. ======================== http://www.skyskan.com/Company/press/glendale.html The quoted text below is from the link above. Their system probably does what I proposed only on a fraction of the cosmic neighborhood, but it sounds like a neat thing to experience.
-
Which age of the universe do they map?
Baby Astronaut replied to Baby Astronaut's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
Would a moderator please close the thread? Or delete it? I'm starting another one. I knew it was a mistake to include the CMB but neglected to remove it before hitting the post button. I'll just rephrase the question elsewhere so no one begins with the wrong impression on the first post here. -
When I first learned about black holes in a documentary, they said you could not realistically approach it because the gravity strength increased exponentially by the millimeter, or something to the effect that parts of your ship would crumble away forward one layer at a time by the sheer difference of gravity between the ship's nose and its tail. But nowadays I read about objects never reaching the black hole, and instead of a "tug" on the ship, the gravity is really just space being warped thus forcing a traveler along a slow circular descent towards the black hole. Which doesn't sound as if what I learned previously is valid anymore. Will someone illuminate me on this? Will a ship or asteroid nearing a black hole be torn apart due to the colossal gravity difference acting between the various parts of either object?
-
I wondered about that. If you're in a larger container which drops, you feel that in the pit of your stomach. But, drop from an airplane to skydive, and all you feel is lots of wind. Also, you're other description makes sense. I've always thought how "warp" drives and black hole drives would rip a ship apart. The former would crumble the ship as its end smashed frontward into the rest of the ship. And the latter would rip the ship's front off incrementally instead of pulling the entire ship at once.
-
Which age of the universe do they map?
Baby Astronaut replied to Baby Astronaut's topic in Astronomy and Cosmology
Sure there would be a point. To look at our universe in real time, how it exists today. Otherwise we're just glancing at history instead of the modern universe. At least where concerns positions of galaxies, super clusters and how far everything has really traveled due to cosmic expansion. -
When they show a diagram of the observable universe or the cosmic microwave background, are they showing the observable universe as we see it now, or do they calculate where everything is supposed to be today and give us the projected approximations in the image? (Edit -- in other words, do they map the universe in "real time" or in observational/past time?) And if they don't usually show us the new projected locations of all cosmic bodies, is there anyone or a group that has created (or attempted) such a map?
-
"Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics" Now that we have a theory of how information might be preserved in a black hole, I wonder how all the light that was trapped and couldn't escape wouldn't result in a brilliant cosmic flash when the black hole evaporates. Am I missing something?