Lemmy Connect preview with Chrome even if you have Firefox installed. You can click Open External but for me once the ads become obtrusive, I’m already over it and stop reading. Now I don’t click those sites at all but come to the comments to see if a summary bot posted
I have ad blockers on my PC, but haven’t gotten around to putting any on my phone. It’s rarely a problem as I don’t visit many sites on my phone. But I should probably add one. I was just pointing out an experience I had. I think you were a bit rude with your comment. Please try to be more kind in the future; that’s what helps communities like Lemmy thrive
According to the article, a galaxy far far away looked like the Milky Way a long time ago. According to simulations, anyway. So, we can use it (along with other similar galaxies at different distances) to learn about the evolution of the Milky Way, the galaxy where all the coolest people live.
Assuming all goes perfectly, the company will have a survey of an asteroid with a commercial worth of several million dollars or more. Surely there’s no way they will share that openly with the scientific community, for fear of corporate competition, which is a terrible shame.
The article doesn’t seem to say, but if we expected oxygen to form via nuclear synthesis in stars, but there’s more oxygen than we would expect, do we have any hypothesis for how? Could oxygen have formed another way or was it more likely that the nuclear synthesis happened more rapidly in the early universe?
Wave/Particle duality of quantum objects (quanta) is a bit like bicycle/car duality when looking at motorcycles. Light isn’t a wave or a particle, but it has properties of both. Motorcycles aren’t pedal-powered bikes or cars, but have properties of both.
Right - that’s what I’m saying. But this article seems to think that if you make a bicycle out of cars then you have a motorcycle… Unless I’m not understanding it.
AFAIK gravity waves are ripples in actual space (mechanical waves) - not a property of “gravitons”.
Gravitons are the name for the quanta of the (hypothetical) quantum gravitational field. They’d be the force carriers of the gravitational force in a theory of quantum gravity, if we had one.
Gravitational waves would still be physical waves like water waves, and they’d be composed of moving gravitons. Spacetime would likely be quantized instead of continuous; this becomes very hard to resolve since quantum mechanics needs to be reformulated to use discrete math instead of calculus, and we don’t really know how to do that (non-uniform spacetime breaks QM).
They seem to think the gravity waves are a property of gravitons.
The article talks about gravitational waves, not gravity waves. It is believed that gravitational radiation is similar to electromagnetic radiation. This would mean that gravitational waves are made up of particles called gravitons. But as the article says, we don't know that for sure because we haven't been able to detect gravitons yet.
maybe space is the graviton field itself(!), but maybe there is a graviton field (or is it the Higgs field?) and gravitons (and Higgs particles?) are excitations of that field; like other particles are excitations of their various postulated quantum fields
Gravitational waves are not 'mechanical waves'. It is thought that gravitational radiation is a lot like electromagnetic radiation. Therefore gravitational waves might work like light waves, and have a particle like light does.
When it comes to duality it’s the particles that exhibit wave-like properties individually.
And waves exhibit particle behavior because waves are particles and particles are waves. Light comes in waves. But when we see light it doesn't mean we are seeing a single light photon.
IIRC: the most advanced experiment we have done regards animal reproduction in space is sending frozen mouse eggs and sperm to the ISS. Then defrosting them, fertilising the eggs and allowing them to grow for a week or so. The mouse blastocysts were then frozen again and returned to earth, implanted in a host mouse and allowed to grow normally for birth.
So yes, we are a long, long way from knowing what the dangers of off earth reproduction are.
Not at all surprised this is coming out of Japan; they’ve been demonstrating for centuries that wood can be used in lieu of metal, often with superior results.
The article is more making the points around overall amounts and ratios rather than just the presence of these materials. Plus it’s a science website more geared towards getting people reading and building interest, not an actual journal.
Wood seems like a good choice for a satellite - it’s lightweight, easy to machine into different shapes, it’s cheap and readily available. It also doesn’t conduct heat as well as aluminum or steel, but I don’t know enough about building satellites to know if that’s a problem.
Because it is less ductile and flexible than aluminum or titanium. It’s easier to decommission by burning it up in the atmosphere without leaving particles behind, and if it collides with another object, it’s more likely to be obliterated.
astronomy
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.