astronomy

This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

ChicoSuave, in Is gravity instantaneous?

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.

lolcatnip,

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.

ElectroNeutrino,

To add onto the pedantry, it’s only changes in gravity which propagate at the speed of light. A static gravitational field doesn’t need to propagate.

Sal,
@Sal@mander.xyz avatar

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.

leave_it_blank, in In 1952, a group of three 'stars' vanished—astronomers still can't find them

Link to the story:

phys.org/…/2023-10-group-stars-vanishedastronomer…

From the article: A third idea is that they weren’t objects at all. Palomar Observatory isn’t too far from the New Mexico deserts where nuclear weapons testing occurred. Radioactive dust from the tests could have contaminated the photographic plates, creating bright spots on some images and not others. Given similar vanishings seen on other photographic plates of the 1950s, this seems quite possible.

ParsnipWitch, in Man Keeps Rock For Years Thinking It's Gold. It Turned Out to Be Far More Valuable.
@ParsnipWitch@feddit.de avatar
Cruxifux, (edited ) in NASA finds water and organics in asteroid sample—possible clues to origin of life

That’s because asteroids with organics that create life are sent out by the Pathagorath, the screeching glutton that dwells in the blinding. He’s the creature that lives in the center of the galaxy and sends out asteroids to seed worlds with life so that he can devour their souls. You see when we die our souls are eternally digested in his bottomless belly, and without ever increasing nourishment his metabolism would cease to produce the necessary excretions our galaxy needs for time to exist and we would simply blink out of existence. We owe him eternally for our existence as well as our damnation.

DaMonsterKnees,

What kinda panspermian fan fiction is this?

Cruxifux,

We must make sacrifices to the Pathagorath in hopes that he may notice our devotion to him and destroy our souls before they are harvested.

Teon,
@Teon@kbin.social avatar

I can get you a bus load of republicans to sacrifice, but they may upset his tummy.

Kata1yst,
@Kata1yst@kbin.social avatar

Souls. They said the Pathagorath needs souls.

Teon,
@Teon@kbin.social avatar

Crap! I forgot to read the fine print.
Yep, there it is... "requires souls..."
Nevermind.

Brazzburry,

And he sent his one true son to teach us about triangles… Again.

Player2, in SpaceX rockets keep tearing blood-red 'atmospheric holes' in the sky, and scientists are concerned

‘scientists are concerned’ and ‘atmospheric holes’ implies something a bit scarier than a short light phenomenon to me, bad headline

Cethin,

Bad headline for the consumer, good headline for the increasingly shitty fear-based media that is trying to get you to click.

thatsTheCatch, in Astronauts dropped a tool bag during an ISS spacewalk, and you can see it with binoculars

The ads on this site on mobile are horreeeeeeeendous

bloopernova,
@bloopernova@programming.dev avatar

Firefox for Android plus ublock origin. I think there’s an ad block on iPhones but you have to buy it.

thatsTheCatch,

Thank you! I use DuckDuckGo on Android because I like it’s simplicity but maybe I’ll change to Firefox someday (I use Firefox on my PC)

makyo,

One Blocker on iOS is pretty decent

NotSpez,

Can confirm

p03locke,
@p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

What ads?

On a completely unrelated note, what bozo would browse the web without an ad blocker?

glimse,

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

Starglasses,

Why would you insult someone for not having your privilege?

Be nice and teach them instead.

thatsTheCatch,

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

remotelove, in Are we living in a baby universe that looks like a black hole to outsiders?

Anton Petrov just put out a video with a similar topic: youtu.be/l4C6Ll6sIQU?si=ac9K5RKYrbFmyapj

He is an awesome science youtuber and does a great job of explaining research on these kinds of topics.

I haven’t watched it yet but will soon. (It popped up on my feed today and remembered it, just for you!)

agressivelyPassive,

I really like his content, but his way of speaking (can’t even say what exactly) is somehow perfect for my brain to completely tune out. I have to really focus on it to actually mentally process it.

paraphrand,

Yeah, I use his channel to fall asleep sometimes. No shade.

Xyz,
@Xyz@infosec.pub avatar

Agreed. He’s very monotone and I don’t think his mic is very good. I like the content, not trying to tear someone down but he’s not a small channel anymore. Wish the production value was a bit higher to engage us more. I want to watch every video but I only watch the ones that I really want to know more about, for this reason.

Artaca, in In 1952, a group of three 'stars' vanished—astronomers still can't find them

The Trisolarans made their dark domain.

Pringles,

Or somebody trapped MorningLightMountain

makyo,

I immediately thought of those books too

Donjuanme, in NASA's 46-year-old Voyager 1 probe is no longer transmitting data

Transmitting a repeating pattern.

Expected to be fixed in a few weeks

XeroxCool, (edited ) in One of the brightest stars in the sky will 'blink out' on Dec. 12. Here's how to watch.

8:17pm EST Dec 11, 2023

the occultation will be visible only from a narrow path stretching from Asia to southern Europe, Florida and eastern Mexico.

The article has links to maps, a detailed info page, and a livestream

Edit: bad fleshbot. I’m kinda guessing the article changes time for the reader because it absolutely says 11th, not the 12th as the title says.

atx_aquarian,
@atx_aquarian@lemmy.world avatar

But, in EST and similar time zones, it’s December 11, not 12, right? The headline says 12th; the article says Monday the 11th. And based on a different article I previously read, I set myself a calendar reminder for the 11th, so I’m leaning that way. Maybe they meant the 12th UTC?

Edit: Yep, in EST and other Western TZs, I’m reading the 11th–Monday night.

skyandtelescope.org/…/asteroid-will-cover-betelge…

Around 1:17 UTC (8:17 p.m. EST December 11th), the main-belt asteroid 319 Leona…

earthsky.org/…/betelgeuse-will-dim-disappear-aste…

So, for example, in Cordoba, Spain, the mid-point of the event will be at about 1:15:45 UTC, or 2:15:45 a.m. local time, on December 12, 2023. And in Miami, Florida, the mid-point of the event will be at about 8:24:54 p.m. local time on December 11, 2023. That’s the same as 1:24:54 UTC on December 12, 2023. Find the exact timing for your location here.

XeroxCool,

You are absolutely correct. I wonder if the title is UTC but the article adapts to the reader. I hope I don’t cause people to miss it

verity_kindle,
@verity_kindle@lemmy.world avatar

Thank you for untangling this. I’m calling up my science loving nieces to watch it for me and report.

XeroxCool,

Please note it’s Dec 11 EST. You may have seen my old comment that said the title’s 12th EST. So it’s best to follow the direct pages linked in the article for your timezone

PissinSelfNdriveway, (edited ) in NASA will reveal what OSIRIS-REx brought back from asteroid Bennu on Wednesday

Rock chips/dust. There, saved you a click.

salton, (edited )

Oh but they got even more rock dust than they expected. It is some of the most interesting rock dust around scientifically.

Steve,

Very interesting dust tho

MyNameIsIgglePiggle,

The very best dust

teft, in The famous star Betelgeuse will briefly disappear tonight
@teft@startrek.website avatar

That was yesterday.

XeroxCool,

Post meridian time zone people seeing 1am UTC events :/

AceQuorthon, in Planet Nine Might Not Be a Planet At All... But Something Else Entirely

It’s your mother

TheBlue22,

Beat me to it

Scubus,

Nah, light escapes

Big_Boss_77,
@Big_Boss_77@kbin.social avatar

It's light... not a chicken tender.

Slurpey, in India fails to re-establish communication with its Moon probe - EFE Noticias

But they still successfully communicate with their agents in Canada

Cyberbatman, in Man Keeps Rock For Years Thinking It's Gold. It Turned Out to Be Far More Valuable.

Kind of bum that the article did not mention how much it was worth

LibertyLizard,
@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net avatar

I think their take is kind of questionable. It may be more valuable to science but its monetary value is almost certainly less than gold.

luciole,
@luciole@beehaw.org avatar

The writing is at morning program levels of goofiness; it’s jarring. At 17 kg this meteorite would be worth over a million USD if it was gold. It’s like the writer is taking a piss at the poor guy who hoped to get some money out of it.

Fester,

The researchers argue that the Maryborough meteorite is much rarer than gold, making it far more valuable to science.

💀

Brickhead92,

Just imagine how many science they could get if they traded it in!

Fuck_u_spez_,

At least 3.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • [email protected]
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • Socialism
  • KbinCafe
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • oklahoma
  • feritale
  • SuperSentai
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines