The great creator is like, " oh I see where this is going, these hairless monkeys made this orange dipshit their leader again… it’s time to reset…". Asteroids incoming.
"Because the light from these galaxies had to travel for so long to reach Earth, it provides a window into the past. The research team estimates that the light detected by JWST was emitted by the two galaxies when the universe was about 330 million years old and traveled for about 13.4 billion light years to reach the JWST. But, the researchers said, the galaxies are currently closer to 33 billion light years away from Earth due to the expansion of the universe over this time. "
The answer is “Gravity moves at light speed.” To avoid the click bait title, here’s the punchline from the article:
The simplest and most convincing observation that gravity travels at the speed of light came in 2017, when both gravitational waves and light were observed from a merger of two neutron stars. Despite traveling more than 100 million light-years, the two signals arrived at Earth only 1.7 seconds apart! This means the speed of light and the speed of gravity differ by no more than 1 part in a quadrillion — in other words, they differ by no more than 0.0000000000001 percent.
To be really pedantic, gravity moves at the speed of light in a vacuum. OTOH my understanding of the speed of light in a medium is that it’s the result of photons being absorbed and re-emitted, and the speed of any individual photon is always exactly c. Personally, I’d prefer the convention that “the speed of light” without qualifiers always means c, but that ship appears to have sailed long ago.
OTOH my understanding of the speed of light in a medium is that it’s the result of photons being absorbed and re-emitted, and the speed of any individual photon is always exactly c.
I am an experimentalist and so if a theoretician reads this they will probably tell you that I am wrong…
I think that the description of a photon being “absorbed” and “re-emitted” could be used to describe the picture from the point of view of quantum field theory (which I don’t claim understand), because within this theory the photon/electron and even electron/electron interactions are mediated by photons that are created and annihilated during those interactions. Whenever the “photon” exists it will travel with speed c. As light travels through a material it is traveling as a wave of electrons influencing each other, similar to how water waves travel through water, and since these interactions of the electrons pushing each other are formally described by the photons popping into and out of existence I think one could correctly use the language of “absorbed” and “re-emitted”.
But personally I think that it can be a bit confusing, because the absorption and emission of light by materials is often used to mean something very different… Absorption more commonly refers to a resonant interaction in which a photon is destroyed and a molecule (or atom, or crystal, etc…) comes into an excited state. The molecule that becomes excited can remain excited for quite a long time (usually picoseconds - microseconds), and the re-emission of the light often comes in a completely different direction and even a different wavelength than the original photon. So using the language of “absorption” and “emission” in this context can also generate confusion,.
Personally when I imagine the propagation of light through a material I think about it in terms of the polarizability of the medium. When the light propagates through a medium, you don’t need a “photon”. The wave is being carried by the electrons oscillating (these are very small oscillations - unless you are using powerful lasers, then you reach the beautiful world of non-linear optics). The speed of propagation of this wave through the medium depends on how far the wave can travel through the material with every oscillation. There is a nice description of this semi-classical process in the Feyman Lectures: www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_31.html
gravity moves at the speed of light in a vacuum
Hmmm… Always? Maybe some funky things happen as the wave passes by a black hole.
I’ll have to try the telescope! It’s not very powerful, but I know I’m on Saturn because it’s a clearly oblate blob. At that time, it’ll be a round blob?
Wood doesn’t burn or rot in the lifeless vacuum of space, but it will incinerate into a fine ash upon reentry into Earth’s atmosphere — making it a surprisingly useful, biodegradable material for future satellites.
No, actually. Metal doesn’t burn up, it melts to slag and disintegrates, but the metal particles don’t become gas the way carbon does. Then you just have a bunch of a space debris and reactive, aerosolized metal particles knocking around the upper atmostphere. Aluminum Oxide ash can float to the ground, or it can cause ozone decomposition. We’re not entirely sure which is worse based on the amount coming back from satellites, but the number of satellites we’re sending up is increasing rapidly. So it wouldn’t hurt if they were a little less toxic.
Yep! They go through a phase of being edge-on so become incredibly flat from our perspective. That also means there’s a peak where the rings are most visible which will be in 2032.
There’s a lot of good books out there with these phases detailed as well as guides for other planets. Highly recommend it for anyone getting into astronomy.
astronomy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.