Jumat, 31 Mei 2019

Space telescope snaps a celestial family photo - CNN

The colorful image shows multiple star clusters. All were created from the same dense gas and dust clumps, but not all of the star clusters are the same age. Essentially, the image shows generations of star clusters, from young to older and more evolved.
The swath of green and orange that fills the left portion of the image is a gas and dust cloud called a nebula. The red glow to the right is dust heated by the stars' radiation.
The red, white and green bright point towards the right really combines four differently colored wavelengths of infrared, which we can't see.
This version of the image was annotated by NASA to point out specific features.
The dark slash in the middle of the green delta on the left is full of baby stars, represented as red and yellow dots. This is called Cepheus C, a stellar nursery where stars are born. One day, it will look like the brighter part of the image as the stars age and the wind they create blows away the gas and dust.
In the top right side of the image, there's a second large nebula with another star cluster, known as Cepheus B. The dark spot full of red and blue stars is between 4 and 5 million years old. Cepheus C will look like this in the future.
Hubble captures image of a galactic 'hit and run'
On the bottom right, there's a blue star with a red slash of light around it. Astronomers call this a "runaway star," and the red slash is a shock wave as it zips through the surrounding gas and dust.
These are found in the constellation Cepheus, which is near Cassiopeia.
The Spitzer Space Telescope is in NASA's Great Observatories family. Spitzer detects infrared light, while Hubble captures visible and UV light, Compton was designed for gamma rays and Chandra sees X-rays.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/world/spitzer-celestial-family-photo-trnd-scn/index.html

2019-05-31 14:08:00Z
52780306831500

Three ways to travel at (nearly) the speed of light - Phys.org

Three ways to travel at (nearly) the speed of light
Credit: NASA

One hundred years ago today, on May 29, 1919, measurements of a solar eclipse offered verification for Einstein's theory of general relativity. Even before that, Einstein had developed the theory of special relativity, which revolutionized the way we understand light. To this day, it provides guidance on understanding how particles move through space—a key area of research to keep spacecraft and astronauts safe from radiation.

The theory of special relativity showed that particles of light, photons, travel through a vacuum at a constant pace of 670,616,629 miles per hour—a that's immensely difficult to achieve and impossible to surpass in that environment. Yet all across space, from black holes to our near-Earth environment, particles are, in fact, being accelerated to incredible speeds, some even reaching 99.9% the speed of light.

One of NASA's jobs is to better understand how these particles are accelerated. Studying these superfast, or relativistic, particles can ultimately help protect missions exploring the solar system, traveling to the Moon, and they can teach us more about our galactic neighborhood: A well-aimed near-light-speed particle can trip onboard electronics and too many at once could have negative radiation effects on space-faring astronauts as they travel to the Moon—or beyond.

Here are three ways that acceleration happens.

1. Electromagnetic Fields

Most of the processes that accelerate particles to relativistic speeds work with electromagnetic fields—the same force that keeps magnets on your fridge. The two components, electric and magnetic fields, like two sides of the same coin, work together to whisk particles at relativistic speeds throughout the universe.

Electric and magnetic fields can add and remove energy from particles, changing their speeds. Credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio

In essence, electromagnetic fields accelerate charged particles because the particles feel a force in an electromagnetic that pushes them along, similar to how gravity pulls at objects with mass. In the right conditions, electromagnetic fields can accelerate particles at near-light-speed.

On Earth, electric fields are often specifically harnessed on smaller scales to speed up particles in laboratories. Particle accelerators, like the Large Hadron Collider and Fermilab, use pulsed to accelerate charged particles up to 99.99999896% the speed of light. At these speeds, the particles can be smashed together to produce collisions with immense amounts of energy. This allows scientists to look for elementary particles and understand what the universe was like in the very first fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

2. Magnetic Explosions

Magnetic fields are everywhere in space, encircling Earth and spanning the solar system. They even guide charged particles moving through space, which spiral around the fields.

When these magnetic fields run into each other, they can become tangled. When the tension between the crossed lines becomes too great, the lines explosively snap and realign in a process known as magnetic reconnection. The rapid change in a region's magnetic field creates electric fields, which causes all the attendant charged particles to be flung away at high speeds. Scientists suspect magnetic reconnection is one way that particles—for example, the solar wind, which is the constant stream of charged particles from the sun—is accelerated to relativistic speeds.

Those speedy particles also create a variety of side-effects near planets. Magnetic reconnection occurs close to us at points where the sun's pushes against Earth's magnetosphere—its protective magnetic environment. When magnetic reconnection occurs on the side of Earth facing away from the sun, the particles can be hurled into Earth's upper atmosphere where they spark the auroras. Magnetic reconnection is also thought to be responsible around other planets like Jupiter and Saturn, though in slightly different ways.

Three ways to travel at (nearly) the speed of light
Huge, invisible explosions are constantly occurring in the space around Earth. These explosions are the result of twisted magnetic fields that snap and realign, shooting particles across space. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale spacecraft were designed and built to focus on understanding all aspects of magnetic reconnection. Using four identical spacecraft, the mission flies around Earth to catch in action. The results of the analyzed data can help scientists understand particle acceleration at relativistic speeds around Earth and across the universe.

3. Wave-Particle Interactions

Particles can be accelerated by interactions with electromagnetic waves, called wave-particle interactions. When collide, their fields can become compressed. Charged particles bouncing back and forth between the waves can gain energy similar to a ball bouncing between two merging walls.

These types of interactions are constantly occurring in near-Earth space and are responsible for accelerating particles to speeds that can damage electronics on spacecraft and satellites in space. NASA missions, like the Van Allen Probes, help scientists understand wave-particle interactions.

Wave-particle interactions are also thought to be responsible for accelerating some cosmic rays that originate outside our solar system. After a supernova explosion, a hot, dense shell of compressed gas called a blast wave is ejected away from the stellar core. Filled with magnetic fields and charged , wave-particle interactions in these bubbles can launch high-energy cosmic rays at 99.6% the speed of light. Wave-particle interactions may also be partially responsible for accelerating the solar wind and cosmic rays from the sun.


Explore further

Studying magnetic space explosions with NASA missions

Citation: Three ways to travel at (nearly) the speed of light (2019, May 31) retrieved 31 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-05-ways.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://phys.org/news/2019-05-ways.html

2019-05-31 13:46:54Z
52780306863370

3 Ways Fundamental Particles Travel at (Nearly) the Speed of Light - Space.com

Light-speed travel is a staple of science fiction in space. No "Star Wars" movie seems complete until the Millennium Falcon (or a rival ship) uses its hyperdrive. And many "Star Trek" fans enjoy talking about the relative star-system-jumping speeds of the USS Enterprise, against the speeds of other Federation ships.

But in real life, physics gets in the way. Einstein's theory of special relativity essentially puts a speed limit on cosmic travel; as far as we can tell, nothing goes faster than the speed of light. Worse, any object that has mass tends to get more and more massive — dragging down the object's velocity — as it approaches light speed. So as far as we know, only small particles can get anywhere near the speed of light.

One hundred years ago, on May 29, 1919, scientists performed measurements of a solar eclipse that confirmed Einstein's work. To celebrate, NASA offered three ways that particles can accelerate to amazing speed in a new statement.

Related: Why Don't We Have a 'Star Wars' Hyperdrive Yet? 

Electromagnetic fields

The sun is a wacky environment to study physics, because it is so extreme compared to Earth. It's also a real-life laboratory showing how nuclear reactions happen. It also is an example of an environment with electromagnetic fields — which, as NASA points out, is the same force that stops magnets from falling off your fridge.

Magnetic fields and electric fields work together to accelerate particles with an electric charge. This charge allows electromagnetic fields to push particles along — sometimes at speeds approaching the speed of light.

We can even simulate this process on Earth. Huge particle accelerators (like at the Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, or at the European Organization for Nuclear Research's Large Hadron Collider) create pulsed electromagnetic fields. These fields accelerate charged particles close to the speed of light. Next, scientists often crash these particles together to see what particles and energy are released. 

In fractions of a second after these collisions, we can quickly observe elementary particles that were around in the first few seconds after the universe was formed. (That event, called the Big Bang, happened about 13.8 billion years ago.)

Magnetic explosions

The sun is also host to phenomena called solar flares. Dancing above the sun's surface is a tangle of magnetic fields. At times, these fields intersect and snap, sending plumes of solar material off the surface — and, sometimes, charged particles along with it.

"When the tension between the crossed lines becomes too great, the lines explosively snap and realign in a process known as magnetic reconnection," NASA officials said in the statement. "The rapid change in a region's magnetic field creates electric fields, which causes all the attendant charged particles to be flung away at high speeds."

Particles streaming off the sun may accelerate close to the speed of light, thrown from the sun thanks to magnetic reconnection. One example of such objects is the solar wind, the constant stream of charged particles the sun emits into the solar system. (There may be other factors speeding these particles as well, such as wave-particle interactions — which is explained in the next section of this article.) 

Magnetic reconnection also likely happens at large planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn. Closer to home, NASA studies magnetic reconnection near Earth using the Magnetospheric Multiscale mission, which measures our planet's magnetic field using four spacecraft. The results may be useful to better understand how particles accelerate all over the universe, NASA officials said.

Wave-particle interactions

Particles can also careen at high speeds when electromagnetic waves collide; that phenomenon is more technically called wave-particle interactions.

"When electromagnetic waves collide, their fields can become compressed. Charged particles bouncing back and forth between the waves can gain energy similar to a ball bouncing between two merging walls," NASA officials said.

These interactions take place all over the universe. Near Earth, NASA missions such as the Van Allen probes are watching wave-particle interactions to better predict particle movements — and protect electronics on satellites. That's because high-speed particles can damage these delicate spacecraft parts.

Supernovas, or star explosions, may also play a role in more far-away interactions. Researchers have theorized that after a star explodes, it creates a blast wave — a shell of hot, dense compressed gas — that zooms away from the stellar core at high speed. These bubbles are full of charged particles and magnetic fields, creating a likely environment for wave-particle interactions. This process may eject high-energy cosmic rays — which consist of particles —  at velocities close to the speed of light. 

Follow Elizabeth Howell on Twitter @howellspace. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.space.com/fundamental-particles-travel-speed-of-light.html

2019-05-31 10:41:00Z
52780306863370

Experiments and calculations allow examination of boron's complicated dance - Phys.org

Experiments and calculations allow examination of boron's complicated dance
Schematic of a boron atom. Credit: Ellen Weiss/Argonne National Laboratory

Work opens a path to precise calculations of the structure of other nuclei.

In a study that combines experimental work and theoretical calculations made possible by supercomputers, scientists have determined the nuclear geometry of two isotopes of boron. The result could help open a path to precise calculations of the structure of other nuclei that scientists could experimentally validate.

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory, in collaboration with scientists in Germany and Poland, determined the difference in a quantity known as the nuclear charge radius between boron-10 and boron-11. The nuclear charge radius indicates the size of an atomic nucleus—which often has relatively indistinct edges.

Nuclear charge radii are difficult to compute with high precision for atoms much larger than boron because of the sheer number of neutrons and protons whose properties and interactions must be derived from .

Nuclear theory builds from quantum chromodynamics (QCD), a set of physical rules that apply to quarks and gluons that compose the protons and neutrons within the nucleus. But trying to solve the nuclear dynamics using QCD alone would be an almost impossible task due to its complexity, and researchers have to rely on at least some simplifying assumptions.

Because boron is relatively light—with only five protons and a handful of neutrons—the team was able to successfully model the two boron isotopes on the Mira supercomputer and study them experimentally using laser spectroscopy. Mira is part of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF), a DOE Office of Science User Facility.

"This is one of the most complicated atomic nuclei for which it is possible to arrive at these experimentally and derive them theoretically," said Argonne nuclear physicist Peter Mueller, who helped lead the study.

Looking at how the nuclear configurations of boron-11 (11B) and boron-10 (10B) differed involved making determinations at extraordinarily small length scales: less than a femtometer—one-quadrillionth of a meter. In a counterintuitive finding, the researchers determined that the 11 nucleons in boron-11 actually occupy a smaller volume than the 10 nucleons in boron-10.

To look experimentally at the boron isotopes, scientists at the University of Darmstadt performed laser spectroscopy on samples of the isotopes, which fluoresce at different frequencies. While most of the difference in the fluorescence patterns is caused by the difference in the mass between the isotopes, there is a component in the measurement that reflects the size of the nucleus, explained Argonne physicist Robert Wiringa.

To separate these components, collaborators from the University of Warsaw and Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan carried out state-of-the-art atomic theory calculations that precisely describe the complicated dance of the five electrons around the nucleus in the boron atom.

"Earlier electron scattering experiments couldn't really say for sure which was bigger," Wiringa said. "By using this laser spectroscopy technique, we're able to see for certain how the extra neutron binds boron-11 more closely."

The good agreement between experiment and theory for the dimensions of the nucleus allows researchers to determine other properties of an isotope, such as its beta decay rate, with higher confidence. "The ability to perform calculations and do experiments go hand-in-hand to validate and reinforce our findings," Mueller said.

The next stage of the research will likely involve the study of boron-8, which is unstable and only has a half-life of about a second before it decays. Because there are fewer neutrons in the nucleus, it is much less tightly bound than its stable neighbors and is believed to have an extended charge radius, Mueller said. "There is a prediction, but only experiment will tell us how well it actually models this loosely bound system," he explained.

An article based on the research, "Nuclear Charge Radii of 10,11B," appears in the May 10 issue of Physical Review Letters.


Explore further

Researchers confirm nuclear structure theory by measuring nuclear radii of cadmium isotopes

More information: Bernhard Maaß et al, Nuclear Charge Radii of B10,11, Physical Review Letters (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.182501

Citation: Experiments and calculations allow examination of boron's complicated dance (2019, May 31) retrieved 31 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-05-boron-complicated.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://phys.org/news/2019-05-boron-complicated.html

2019-05-31 06:42:46Z
CAIiEGU9lqkT6gJahn8iIx-q7ZcqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowpbDpAzCm_hwwj9kp

Kamis, 30 Mei 2019

NASA SHOCK: Space agency strapped Apollo 11 astronauts to a ‘BIG BOMB’ claims insider - Express.co.uk

’s Apollo 11 landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969, just eight years after President John F Kennedy outlined his plan to win the Space Race. The mission saw astronauts Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin blast off on a Saturn V rocket into space. The Saturn V, until the development of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket, was the most powerful spacecraft capable of sending humans beyond low Earth orbit. But, a former NASA insider has now revealed the incredible powerful rocket was “effectively a big bomb”.

Space historian Rod Pyle, who has worked with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, appeared on Coast to Coast AM radio to discuss the significance of Apollo 11.

Speaking to host George Noory, Mr Pyle who watched Apollo 11 take off as a child, shared some of the behind-the-scenes dangers of the mission.

Mr Pyle shockingly explained .

And he explained why the Saturn V launch itself was one of the most dangerous parts of the mission.

READ MORE:

NASA news: Apollo 11 Moon landing

NASA SHOCK: The Saturn V rocket was essentially a 'controlled bomb' at launch (Image: NASA)

The Apollo 11 expert said: “I think we all knew that the launch was dangerous because the Saturn V is effectively a big controlled bomb, you know, gradually letting explosives off all at once.

“It was almost a million gallons of combined fuels of various grades of explosivity – essentially the power of a small nuclear weapon.

“Very small, like half-a-kiloton, but had it hit the launch tower leaving or something gone wrong could have thrown a turbine blade in an engine or something, you could have had a spectacular failure there.

“Now, I think the crew probably would have survived but it would have made a real mess of the launch site.

READ MORE:

“Then, once it up into orbit, things were generally pretty safe but it did have to have that Third Stage restarts in , which is something we haven’t had much experience with but that worked every time."

The Saturn V is effectively a big controlled bomb

Rod Pyle, space historian

The next “big moment”, Mr Pyle said, was the lunar landing itself, where so many things could have gone wrong but everything ended up going just right.

The space expert said: “I think the overview here is we were operating right at the edge of what technology could do.

“This technology was being designed in the early 1960s with pencil, graph paper, protractors and slide rulers.

READ MORE: 

“Computers haven’t really come into use until the mid-60s in a major way.

“And so when you think of that and what they accomplished, it’s almost harder for me to believe now than it was at the time.”

Apollo 11 landed on the Moon on July 20 and after six hours of preparations, just before 3am UTC on July 21, commander Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the Moon.

The NASA mission returned to Earth on July 24, where it splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, southwest of Hawaii.

NASA news: Apollo 11 Saturn V rocket launch

NASA news: Until recently, the Saturn V was the most powerful rocket in the world (Image: NASA)

NASA news: Apollo 11 return to Earth

NASA news: The Apollo 11 crew returned to Earth on July 24, 1969 (Image: NASA)

Quick facts about NASA’s Apollo 11 Moon landing:

1. NASA’s goal of landing on the Moon was set out by US President John F Kennedy on May 25, 1961.

2. Apollo 11 launched from Florida’s Cape Canaveral on July 16, 1969.

3. Up to 650 million people are estimated to have watched Commander Neil Armstrong step out onto the surface of the Moon.

4. Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin spent a total of 21 hours and 36 minutes on the Moon.

5. Apollo 11 returned to Earth on July 24, 1969, and splashed down in the Pacific Ocean about 13 miles from the recovery ship USS Hornet.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1133652/NASA-Apollo-11-nasa-moon-landing-Saturn-V-rocket-bomb-Rod-Pyle

2019-05-30 15:08:40Z
52780304370905

Time-lapse Earth Flyover from NASA Astronaut in Space - NASA

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75BvlfSbkEA

2019-05-30 14:29:47Z
CCAiCzc1QnZsZlNia0VBmAEB

Sonic black holes produce “Hawking radiation,” may confirm famous theory - Ars Technica

Simulated view of a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud.
Enlarge / Simulated view of a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Israeli physicists think they have confirmed one of the late Stephen Hawking's most famous predictions by creating the sonic equivalent of a black hole out of an exotic superfluid of ultra-cold atoms. Jeff Steinhauer and colleagues at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) described these intriguing experimental results in a new paper in Nature.

The standard description of a black hole is an object with such a strong gravitational force that light can't even escape once it moves behind a point of no return known as the event horizon. But in the 1970s, Hawking demonstrated that—theoretically, at least—black holes should emit tiny amounts of radiation and gradually evaporate over time.

Blame the intricacies of quantum mechanics for this Hawking radiation. From a quantum perspective, the vacuum of space continually produces pairs of virtual particles (matter and antimatter) that pop into existence and just as quickly annihilate away. Hawking proposed that a virtual particle pair, if it popped up at the event horizon of a black hole, might have different fates: one might fall in, but the other could escape, making it seem as if the black hole were emitting radiation. The black hole would lose a bit of its mass in the process. The bigger the black hole, the longer it takes to evaporate. (Mini-black holes the size of a subatomic particle would wink out of existence almost instantaneously.)

Hawking’s prediction has enormous implications for theoretical physics, most notably for the black hole information paradox, but it's proven extremely difficult to test experimentally. The primary challenge is nicely summarized by Silke Weinfurtner, a physicist at the University of Nottingham, in a viewpoint that accompanies the latest results: "The temperature that is associated with Hawking radiation, known as the Hawking temperature, is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole," she writes. "And for the smallest observed black holes, which have a mass similar to that of the Sun, this temperature is about 60 nanokelvin. Hawking radiation therefore produces a tiny signal, and it would seem that the phenomenon cannot be verified through observation."

So physicists have turned to so-called analogue black holes, first proposed in 1981 by University of British Columbia physicist William Unruh. He suggested a sonic analogue that he dubbed a "dumb hole," since it is sound, not light, that becomes trapped behind a kind of event horizon. It's a bit like a waterfall where the water flows faster and faster over an edge until it flows faster than the speed of sound through water. This creates the equivalent of a point of no return. The fluid is moving faster than the speed of sound, so no sound can outrun the fluid to escape in the opposite direction.

Analogue black holes mimic the behavior of their celestial counterparts by trapping sound waves behind the equivalent of an event horizon.
Enlarge / Analogue black holes mimic the behavior of their celestial counterparts by trapping sound waves behind the equivalent of an event horizon.
S. Weinfurtner/Nature

Unruh's work was theoretical, but in 2009, Steinhauer briefly created a black hole analogue out of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) made of 100,000 chilled rubidium atoms. When densely packed atoms are chilled to extremely low temperatures (billionths of degrees above absolute zero), they will collectively convert to their lowest energy state and essentially behave like one big "super atom." That is a BEC, a kind of superfluity. Steinhauer was able to create the physical realization of Unruh's dumb holes in a BEC—part of the fluid flowed faster than the speed of sound, effectively creating a supersonic region behind an event horizon that prevented sound waves from propagating in the opposite direction of the current.

Steinhauer reasoned that his analogue system should also emit the equivalent of Hawking radiation, complete with entangled phonons. In the words, sound waves should emerge from the sonic event horizon, just as Hawking radiation emerges from a real black hole.  By 2014, he had observed tantalizing hints of the phenomenon, and two years later he announced the observation of entangled phonons being emitted by their sonic black hole. Granted, it wasn’t exactly Hawking radiation—it’s a sound wave analog of it. But it was the strongest evidence to date in support of Hawking's theoretical prediction.

Now Steinhauer is back with the results from his new, improved experimental setup capable of producing a much stronger signal. He and his co-authors have shown that pairs of sound waves—the sonic equivalents of virtual particles—emerge at the analogue event horizon. One is emitted away from the supersonic region while the other is absorbed. And just as Hawking predicted, "The system’s radiation... has a thermal spectrum with a temperature determined only by the system’s analogous equivalent to gravity, a relationship between the speed of sound and its flow," Ryan Mandelbaum wrote at Gizmodo. "This means that it emitted a continuous spectrum of wavelengths, rather than preferred wavelengths."

"The main novelty of de Nova and colleagues’ work is a clever detection scheme that they use to extract the temperature of the emitted radiation," Weinfurtner writes. "The authors’ findings provide the first evidence of the Hawking temperature from a quantum simulator." She notes further that this work might prove useful in measuring other unusual quantum phenomena likely to occur near the event horizon.

The next step is to repeat the experiment in hopes of measuring how this analogue version of Hawking radiation might change over time. “I’m interested in learning whatever we can about real black holes and real gravity,” Steinhauer told Gizmodo. “The way I see it, what we saw was that Hawking’s calculations were correct.”

DOI: Nature, 2019. 10.1038/s41586-019-1241-0  (About DOIs).

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/physicists-spot-hawking-radiation-in-analogue-black-hole-experiment/

2019-05-30 14:15:00Z
52780305730943

Astronomers Spot 'Forbidden Planet' in Neptunian Desert - Space.com

Astronomers have used a desert-based observatory to identify an exoplanet that falls in the middle of what scientists had dubbed the Neptunian Desert.

That term refers to a phenomenon that astronomers had noticed by which there seemed to be an absence of Neptune-size planets that orbit their star in less than four days. The newly discovered planet is formally known as NGTS-4b but nicknamed "The Forbidden Planet" for its supposed implausibility.

"This planet must be tough — it is right in the zone where we expected Neptune-sized planets could not survive," lead author Richard West, an astronomer at the University of Warwick in the U.K., said in a statement. "It is truly remarkable that we found a transiting planet via a star dimming by less than 0.2% — this has never been done before by telescopes on the ground."

Related: The Most Fascinating Exoplanets Found Last Year

The "Forbidden Planet" orbits a star called NGTS-4, which is located about 920 light-years away from Earth. The planet seems to circle its star once every 1.3 Earth-days, and it is about 20 times the mass and 3 times the radius of Earth. It also seems to retain an atmosphere, which particularly surprised the researchers, since at such a close distance to its star it would be difficult for the planet to cling to gas.

The researchers believe that the planet may exist despite its location because it formed elsewhere and migrated into the Neptunian Desert zone within the last million years or so. It could also have been born much larger and be gradually losing material.

Astronomers used the Next-Generation Transit Survey telescope in the Atacama Desert of Chile to spot the newly identified planet. 

(Image: © University of Warwick)

The planet was first spotted in data gathered by the Next-Generation Transit Survey telescope,  located in the mountains of the Atacama Desert of Chile. The team used a range of other telescopes to conduct follow-up observations that made them more confident in the detection and characterization of NGTS-4b.

And they hope to build on the new research to find the "Forbidden Planet" some company. "We are now scouring out data to see if we can see any more planets in the Neptune Desert," West said in the statement. "Perhaps the desert is greener than was once thought."

The research is described in a paper published April 20 in the journal the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 

Email Meghan Bartels at mbartels@space.com or follow her @meghanbartels. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.space.com/forbidden-planet-ndgts4b-neptunian-desert.html

2019-05-30 11:19:00Z
52780305286302

A planet that shouldn’t exist was just found orbiting a distant star - BGR

When astronomers search for exoplanets they rarely know what they’re going to find, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t rules that would-be planets are expected to follow. Depending on their distance from their host star, any given planet will fall into one of several categories… or at least that’s what scientists have come to expect.

NGTS-4b, a newly-discovered world orbiting a distant star, doesn’t follow many of the rules that researchers thought they knew, and it’s earned the nickname “The Forbidden Planet” because of it.

NGTS-4b was detected by scientists with the European Southern Observatory. The planet lies in an area known as the Neptunian Desert, which is the name given to the region immediately surrounding a star where planets of similar size to Neptune are almost never found.

This area is extremely close to the star, and it’s that makes it incredibly hostile. Planets found in this region are typically stripped bare of their atmosphere which is blown out into space by the energy put out by the host star.

NGTS-4b is a rare exception to this rule, as it appears to still have its atmosphere intact. That’s rather shocking, especially when you consider that it’s so close to its star that it completes an entire orbit in less than two Earth days. Earth, by comparison, takes a year to complete that same trip. The planet is estimated to be around 1,000 degrees Celsius.

“This planet must be tough—it is right in the zone where we expected Neptune-sized planets could not survive,” lead author Dr. Richard West of the University of Warwick said in a statement. “We are now scouring out data to see if we can see any more planets in the Neptune Desert—perhaps the desert is greener than was once thought.”

It’s likely, the researchers say, that the planet only recently traveled into its incredibly close orbit with its star, and that big changes are likely to happen within the next million years or so as its atmosphere is blasted away by its star.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://bgr.com/2019/05/29/forbidden-planet-ngts-4b-astronomy/

2019-05-30 02:05:00Z
52780305286302

Rabu, 29 Mei 2019

Why astronomers are worried that SpaceX’s satellite network will pollute the night sky - The Verge

Over the weekend, astronomers and space enthusiasts everywhere caught a glimpse of SpaceX’s recently launched Starlink satellites in the sky. They’re the first 60 spacecraft of nearly 12,000 the company plans to launch for its massive “internet from space” initiative. For many on the internet, it was an amazing sight to see. For the astronomy community, it was devastating to watch.

The satellites, strung out like a line of glowing army ants, shone brightly as they moved along their orbit around Earth, clearly visible to the naked eye. Now, many in the astronomy community are concerned that this mega constellation might be too bright, and the sheer number of satellites that SpaceX wants to launch could muck up their telescope observations of the Universe.

“It’s going to become increasingly likely that the satellites will pass through the field of view and essentially contaminate your view of the Universe,” Darren Baskill, an outreach officer of physics and astronomy at the University of Sussex, tells The Verge. “And it’s going to be really difficult to remove that contamination away from our observations.”

Satellites are already an issue for astronomers studying celestial objects in deep space. In order to get detailed images of objects many light-years away from Earth, astronomers take long-exposure shots of the sky with their telescopes. This type of imaging entails leaving the telescope exposed to light for minutes or hours. As a result, scientists can gather light from a very distant, faint object and figure out more about it. For instance, it’s a great way to learn what kinds of gases are in a faraway galaxy. Each type of gas emits different types of light, which astronomers can detect and identify.

But whenever a super bright object passes through the field of view of a long-exposure shot, the observation gets muddied. The light from that object tears through the image, causing a long, bright streak through the sky. Satellites can be particularly bright since they’re often made with reflective materials or have solar panels that bounce light from the Sun. “If it was just a point in an image, that wouldn’t be too bad,” Phil Bull, a theoretical cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London, tells The Verge. “You could just ignore the bit around that point. But because it’s a big line going through your image, it really gets in the way.”

Currently, there are about 5,000 satellites in orbit around Earth, around 2,000 of which are still operational, according to the most recent report from the European Space Agency. These objects already cause the occasional streak and headache for astronomers. But with the addition of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation, as well as other proposed mega constellations from OneWeb, Telesat, Kepler Communications, and now Amazon, the number of operational satellites could increase significantly. And that could drastically up the risk of satellites streaking across a telescope’s sightline.

But exactly how often this interference will happen remains to be seen. It all depends on where the satellites are above the Earth, the time of day, and the time of year. Satellites can be seen for a few hours around dusk and dawn when they catch the light from the Sun as the sky dims, but they won’t reflect light for many hours of the night whenever they are in the shadow of the Earth. However, in higher latitudes during the summer, satellites can be seen throughout the evening. That’s because they’re high enough in the sky to still catch the Sun and stay out of the Earth’s shadow. “You can go into your backyard with some binoculars or even the naked eye, and you can see plenty of satellites whizzing around a few hours past dusk or before dawn,” says Bull. “It’s really not like they just instantly switch off when the sun sets on Earth.”

The problem is there is very little public data on how such giant constellations could pollute the night sky with light. There’s been a lot of discussion about how these mega constellations will potentially run into each other, causing debris that could pose a danger to other satellites in the sky. But the discussion of light pollution exploded over the weekend after amateur astronomers released footage of the Starlink satellites, showing them to be much brighter than people imagined. “There are plenty of us in the community that were aware of this concern, but until people saw with their own eyes this freight train of satellites, it didn’t really jump into the public consciousness,” Mary Knapp, a research scientist studying exoplanets at MIT Haystack Observatory, tells The Verge.

The Verge reached out to the Federal Communications Commission, which provided the license for Starlink, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. We also reached out to SpaceX twice but did not receive a response.

One astronomer, Cees Bassa, attempted to do the math and calculated just how many of these satellites might be visible in the sky at one time. For his analysis, he factored in the first leg of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation — about 1,600 satellites — as there are better details about the orbits they’re going to. Based on just that initial batch, he estimated that at a latitude of 52 degrees north (about where London is located), there will be 84 Starlink satellites above the horizon at all times. And for many hours around dusk, dawn, and in the nighttime during summer, 15 of those satellites would be visible in the sky at all times, about 30 degrees above the horizon.

Of course, that’s just the first batch of Starlink satellites; the impact of additional spacecraft could be worse. Bassa argues he didn’t go beyond the initial 1,600 in his calculations because he didn’t have accurate orbital data for the rest of the satellites — and their height affects their brightness. “If they’re higher, they’ll be fainter but visible for longer,” Bassa, an astronomer at the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy, tells The Verge. “If the satellites are in lower orbits, they will be brighter but visible for less long.” Additionally, sometimes satellites can momentarily get brighter when they happen to catch the light from the Sun, causing more interference.

Over the weekend, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tried to downplay the astronomy community’s concerns, arguing that Starlink would have “~0% impact on advancements in astronomy.” He also claimed that the satellites would not be visible when the stars are out and that the reason the International Space Station is visible at night is because it’s big and has lights — two statements that aren’t true. (The ISS has very large solar panels that reflect lots of sunlight, even at nighttime on Earth.) Musk ultimately argued that “we need to move telescopes to orbit anyway” since these instruments have to deal with interference from Earth’s atmosphere.

That statement is naive, according to many astronomers. Telescopes can be built much bigger on Earth with dishes more than 30 meters (98 feet) in diameter, allowing astronomers to take in a lot of light and get more detailed observations. Launching such a massive telescope off of Earth is incredibly difficult, requiring giant rockets or very complex engineering. Right now, NASA is working toward launching its biggest space telescope yet, the James Webb Space Telescope, which has a primary mirror that’s a little more than 20 feet wide. Developing that telescope for launch and for space has taken decades, and the cost has ballooned to nearly $10 billion. “Taking these apertures off of the Earth and putting them in space is not technically feasible right now,” says Knapp. “And when and if it becomes so, it’s very, very expensive, much — much more expressive than the telescopes we have on the ground of similar size.”

In the end, even space-based telescopes in orbit around Earth still have problems with satellites. “We see satellites in space-based observations, too, when the satellites are above the space telescope,” says Knapp. “So it’s not just a ground-based observational problem.”

The good news is that the current batch of Starlink satellites are already getting dimmer, as they are slowly moving to their final higher orbits and spreading far apart. Many astronomers are eagerly waiting to see just how dim they become to better understand what the final effect of the Starlink constellation will be. After lots of backlash, Musk did say that SpaceX could tweak the orientation of these satellites to minimize any disturbance of astronomical observations, claiming that “we care a great deal about science.”

But it’s not just light that astronomers are worried about. Some are concerned that the radio frequencies these satellites will be transmitting on will also interfere with radio observations of the Universe. Often, astronomers will study radio waves coming from distant objects to learn more about them, especially hot bodies like stars that emit super intense X-rays that can be measured from Earth. Musk did say that SpaceX’s Starlink satellites won’t transmit at certain frequencies to avoid astronomy observations, but it could still create a blind spot. “As technology has progressed, the ability to look at the Universe at all frequencies has expanded greatly,” Colin Lonsdale, the director of the MIT Haystack Observatory, tells The Verge. “So what something like Starlink will do, it’ll shut off some of those frequencies from the possibility of study.” Lonsdale also argues that there is a possibility that there will be some level of transmission that spills outside the intended frequency bands.

Overall, Musk argues that providing global internet coverage is the “greater good” in the long run. Ultimately, many astronomers don’t want to stand in the way of this type of innovation, but many have also expressed interest in more data and discussions about the impact of the Starlink constellation on the night sky as well as other proposed internet satellite initiatives. “There’s been a long and very productive partnership between astronomers and the technology side of things to try and find solutions that work for everyone,” says Bull. “As far as I’m aware, that just hasn’t happened here. And to be honest, it’s unusual to have not consulted on this kind of impact.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/29/18642577/spacex-starlink-satellite-constellation-astronomy-light-pollution

2019-05-29 15:12:42Z
52780303931193

Chimpanzees spotted 'crabbing' in discovery which could rewrite human history - Metro.co.uk

A view of the Nimba Mountains, where chimps were spotted eating crab
A view of the Nimba Mountains, where chimps were spotted eating crab

Once upon a time, humans couldn’t simply pop down to Tesco, buy a crab and then happily enjoy a lovely light lunch.

At some point in ancient history, our ancestors had to figure out how to catch fish and other aquatic organisms, potentially providing them with nutrients which powered the brain development process which led to the evolution of modern humans.

Now scientists have found a clue about how we might have started to harvest the sea’s bounty after spotting chimpanzees eating crabs for the first time.

Chimps living in the Nimba Mountains in Guinea, West Africa, have been observed eating freshwater crabs.

Females and young animals are most likely to catch a crab, which gives them the sort of nutrients they normally get from wolfing down handfuls of tasty ants.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Tetsuro Matsuzawa, senior co-author on a paper detailing the discovery, said: ‘”This isn’t the first case of non-human primates eating crabs, but is the first evidence of apes other than humans doing so.

‘Notably, previous observations were from monkey species in locations consistent with aquatic faunivory – lakes, rivers, or coastlines — and not in closed rainforest.

‘It’s exciting to see a behaviour like this that allows us to improve our understanding of what drove our ancestors to diversify their diet.’

The research ‘sheds light on our own evolution’ because it suggests fishing might not be dependent on habitat – which means ancient humans may have caught creatures living in rivers as well as the sea.

‘The aquatic fauna our ancestors consumed likely provided essential long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, required for optimal brain growth and function,’ explained first author Kathelijne Koops from the University of Zurich and Kyoto University’s leading graduate program in Primatology and Wildlife Science.

‘Further, our findings suggest that aquatic fauna may have been a regular part of hominins’ diets and not just a seasonal fallback food.’

Advertisement

Advertisement

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/29/chimpanzees-spotted-crabbing-discovery-rewrite-human-history-9723194/

2019-05-29 10:13:00Z
52780305503678

Scientists Find Possible Traces of 'Lost' Stone Age Settlement Beneath the North Sea - Live Science

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Scientists Find Possible Traces of 'Lost' Stone Age Settlement Beneath the North Sea  Live Science

Deep beneath the North Sea, scientists have discovered a fossilized forest that could hold traces of prehistoric early humans who lived there around 10,000 ...


https://www.livescience.com/65581-lost-stone-age-settlement-north-sea.html

2019-05-29 10:58:00Z
CBMiSmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmxpdmVzY2llbmNlLmNvbS82NTU4MS1sb3N0LXN0b25lLWFnZS1zZXR0bGVtZW50LW5vcnRoLXNlYS5odG1s0gFKaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAubGl2ZXNjaWVuY2UuY29tLzY1NTgxLWxvc3Qtc3RvbmUtYWdlLXNldHRsZW1lbnQtbm9ydGgtc2VhLmh0bWw

What the M87 black hole and a 1919 eclipse reveal about Einstein - Science News

A century ago, British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington and his colleagues photographed a solar eclipse, and changed the way humankind thought about the heavens.

Those photographs, taken on May 29, 1919, from Sobral, Brazil and Príncipe Island off Africa’s west coast, affirmed for the first time a key prediction of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity: Mass bends spacetime. The expeditions marked a revolution in physics and made Einstein a celebrity.

Today, physicists are at it again — on a much larger scale. In April, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) collaboration released the first picture of the edge of a black hole (SN: 4/27/19, p. 6). That image again showed that massive objects, such as black holes or the sun, can change how light travels, just as Einstein predicted.

“The EHT has done the exact same thing, but in the most extreme example imaginable,” says physicist and EHT team member Lia Medeiros of the University of Arizona in Tucson. “It’s almost poetic that these two experiments occurred almost exactly 100 years apart.”

M87 black hole

So far, the new black hole data have confirmed general relativity. But future EHT images of the gravitational beasts — especially the one at the center of our own galaxy — could potentially poke holes in Einstein’s famous theory.

“Any time we have a theory that works so spectacularly, you just want to push it to its extremes,” says astrophysicist and EHT team member Michael Johnson of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. And black holes are “a laboratory of extremes — this is where we can point to new physics and point to cracks in our existing theories,” he says.

1919 telescopes

A hundred years ago, scientists didn’t have a black hole to test for cracks in general relativity —black holes were just the stuff of imagination back then — but they did have the 1919 total solar eclipse (SN Online: 4/12/19). At the time, the predominant theory of gravity was Newtonian, which says that gravity is a force. Forces can accelerate objects that have mass, but since light has no mass, gravity shouldn’t affect it, the thinking went. But a few years earlier, in 1915, Einstein had proposed his general theory of relativity, which says that gravity comes from matter and energy warping spacetime, generating curves that change objects’ motion or even the path of light itself.

In Eddington’s and his colleagues’ photographs of the eclipse, stars appeared in different positions in the sky during the eclipse, when their light had to pass the sun to reach earthly observers, than on an ordinary night (SN Online: 8/15/17). The sun’s gravity had changed the path that the starlight took. Einstein was right.

eclipse notebook

These days, the idea that gravity can curve light is so well understood that physicists use it to probe the properties of spacetime itself. Before the EHT started taking data in 2017, for example, scientists had used Einstein’s equations to get a precise idea of what a black hole should look like, if the theory didn’t break down in the extreme environment.

Black holes curve spacetime so extremely that light gets trapped inside them. So physicists can’t see light emitted by the black hole directly. But they can see the black hole’s shadow on bright material around it. Under general relativity, that shadow should have a specific size and shape: a circle whose width is directly related to its mass. “This all falls out of Einstein’s equations,” Johnson says. “If you have a different theory of gravity, you can predict a different ring on the sky.”

The EHT’s first picture captured the black hole in galaxy M87, about 55 million light-years from Earth, and looked like researchers thought it would.  “Again, GR passes with flying colors, as far as we can tell currently,” Johnson says.  

Worldwide telescope

To take the image of M87’s black hole, astronomers linked up observatories around the world to make the Event Horizon Telescope, which is effectively the size of the entire Earth.

Event Horizon Telescope

The theory’s next real test will come when the EHT team photographs the black hole in the center of the Milky Way, called Sagittarius A*. “The reason Sgr A* is in many ways a stronger test for relativity is we know very precisely exactly what that ring should look like, if [general relativity] really holds up,” Johnson says.

Sgr A* is close enough, about 26,000 light-years from Earth, that astronomers can see individual stars whipping around the black hole. That gives researchers an extremely accurate estimate of its mass, and thus the size of its shadow inside a glowing ring.

M87 is too far away for physicists to have measured its black hole’s mass precisely in advance of taking the picture. Previous mass estimates differed by a factor of two, and only the EHT measurement told scientists which mass was right (SN Online: 4/22/19). But that mass uncertainty meant that the prediction for the size of the ring was much weaker.

“There was a lot of wiggle room there” for M87, Johnson says. “For Sgr A*, there’s almost no wiggle room.” Either Sgr A*’s shadow is a certain width, or general relativity is broken.

Unfortunately, Sgr A* is a much more difficult black hole to photograph than M87. It’s about one one-thousandth the mass of M87. For perspective, that’s about 4 million times the mass of the sun compared to M87’s 6.5 billion times. That means that material swirls around Sgr A* much more quickly, making the black hole appear to flicker and vary over the course of a single night of observing.

But Medeiros and others on the EHT team are working on computer algorithms to work around that variability. It should take much less than another century to find out what Sgr A* has to say about general relativity.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.sciencenews.org/article/1919-eclipse-photo-einstein-black-holes

2019-05-29 10:00:05Z
52780304943527