YouTube link for the same video:
First images from Euclid are in
121–130 of 404 posts
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#122It's just so crazy to me to see a galaxy 420 million light years away. That is so much time for what we're seeing to have changed. I presume life can form within that window given the right conditions, so to some degree it just feels a bit sad that the distance is so great that we can't actually see what may exist in this moment that far away
[deleted]
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#123It's just so crazy to me to see a galaxy 420 million light years away. That is so much time for what we're seeing to have changed. I presume life can form within that window given the right conditions, so to some degree it just feels a bit sad that the distance is so great that we can't actually see what may exist in this moment that far away
In another way it's really cool to be able to "see the past" even if all we see is always the past. At this level it is like a super power. If only some aliens had put a mirror somewhere far so we could see ourselves too. Or multiple mirrors at different distances. With enough mirrors and light bouncing around the size of the universe itself can be a "storage media" of the past with different photons all around carry…
In theory, couldn't we focus on a perfect spot near a black hole where the light has been warped 180 degrees around it... i.e. if the black hole is 100 light years away, you'd see ( with perfect zoom, of course ) a picture of the earth 200 years ago...?
I understand that we'd have to account for the movement of objects, of course, but with computers, seems like a small hurdle...
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
So many rules, laws, and systems for all of this to be random. Seems a waste of good code if everything is random. Is an ecosystem random? What happens when one outside force is added to an ecosystem? There's plenty of examples around the globe of this. Life doesn't 'find a way' and balance. The ecosystem is damaged, and often times destroyed by adding a single non-native species. That doesn't seem random does it? Ra…
I've been convinced that random is so maximally inclusive that there is no error category. Obviously uniformity is an anti-random condition that would bait the label "error" but I think it's still perfectly random to flip a coin tails 2, 4, 6, 6k times consecutively and the uniformity is simply a shocking instance of random. To your point, I don't think random implies balance though I understand that statistically th…
Randomness and probabilities can be incredibly hard to wrap our heads around.
A deck only has 52 cards, but you shuffle it properly, it's essentially guaranteed that nobody in human history has ended up with the same order as you just did.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.
So many rules, laws, and systems for all of this to be random. Seems a waste of good code if everything is random. Is an ecosystem random? What happens when one outside force is added to an ecosystem? There's plenty of examples around the globe of this. Life doesn't 'find a way' and balance. The ecosystem is damaged, and often times destroyed by adding a single non-native species. That doesn't seem random does it? Ra…
Ecosystems do adapt. They look broken to us because of our ridiculously small life span.
That's why I dislike framing climate change actions as "saving the planet". The planet will be just fine. We won't.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly, but the challenges to do so are immense. Using the sun as a giant gravitational lens seems much more tractable.
Really? I wouldn't think the sun is nearly massive enough to do what would be required here. Stars visible near the edge of the Sun appear in slightly different spots from their actual locations. If there was a distant planet directly behind the Sun whose light were focused back to an image on our side of the Sun, you'd have to get really far back from the Sun to resolve the image, no? And furthermore, it's exceeding…
> Really? I wouldn't think the sun is nearly massive enough to do what would be required here.
You "just" need to get far enough away (~600AU). Interferometry is extremely difficult to pull this off with and it’s further complicated by the host star being so much brighter than the exoplanet.
See this recent Fraser Cain interview with Dr. Slava Turyshev:
https://www.youtube.com/live/lqzJewjZUkk?si=WWNdR1PESYzD0d4X
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess would be that there are millions of other intelligent species out there. Maybe these species are distributed evenly throughout our 90-billion-lightyear-in-diameter universe. Maybe half evolved to our current level of sophistication in less time than it took us. So... what is the minimum duration of time, after the big bang, that some lineage of creatures might take to evolve from sludge into a life form capa…
Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but the milky way is only 105 thousand light years across. So even if you assume an earth like planet couldn't have formed any earlier than ours, other intelligent life in the galaxy only has to go through the geological processes and evolve a tiny tiny fraction of a percent faster to have tons of time to send all the signals they ever want. Nearest other galaxy is only a couple millio…
My guess, again based on the lack of cosmic signals we have detected, is that intelligent life is rare enough - at this age of the universe, at least - that we have no company yet in the Milky Way. That leaves a lot of room though - there might already be simpler forms of life.
But I won't go to the mat arguing my impression; we only have evidence from one planet to go by, so any view here lacks empirical evidence.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
If light is hitting it, can you explain why not?
The naïve optical instrument will be diffraction limited. The resolving power of a lens, basically how "sharp" the resulting image will be, goes down as you decrease the size of the aperture relative to the focal length (that is, as the f-stop number goes up). A telescope that could zoom into an exoplanet would have an f value of a kajillion or so.
You’d need a 90km aperture to get a one pixel image of an Earth-sized exoplanet at 100ly.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
In another way it's really cool to be able to "see the past" even if all we see is always the past. At this level it is like a super power. If only some aliens had put a mirror somewhere far so we could see ourselves too. Or multiple mirrors at different distances. With enough mirrors and light bouncing around the size of the universe itself can be a "storage media" of the past with different photons all around carry…
Well that sounds like a good premise for a scifi book or movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hundred_Light-Year_Diary
By Greg Egan, so highly recommended.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#130I wish there was a standardized way to let folks who run a website such as this one know how much a casual passer-by viewer enjoys the byproduct of their work.
Esa has social media accounts, pretty sure some intern will see if you ping them, I don't imagine they get much traffic