The Ye Science Thread

[M^tster]

Just throwing this out there but, I was under the impression that the closer a large object gets to the speed of light the more its mass increases therefore the  speed "retarder" kicks in. Unless they come up with some way to create a "bubble" where mass has no impact light speed will never happen. 99% could be acheived in theory though the fuel would also have to be close to infinate...right?
 Plus course calculations at light speed would have to be precalculated as a course correction in flight would be too late. Gotta have a map of where your going so someone would have to go out first to check the "terrain", which means slower than light speed travel for someone for a looooong time. So a couple millennia from now we may have a map to use for close to light speed travel, but not a very big one...if we start right now.

 

[yahoo]

yep. same as I understood.
theoretically, an object can only travel up to 99.99999 % of light speed since at light speed the objects mass would be infinite.

Unless they come up with some way to create a "bubble" where mass has no impact light speed will never happen. 

Theoretically, wormholes is another way to circumvent the speed limit. Though an object doesn't really move,  it can travel in light speed by warping or bend the space in front of it thus mass will not be affected. However again, the energy required to achieve space bending is mind boggling.

Plus course calculations at light speed would have to be precalculated as a course correction in flight would be too late. Gotta have a map of where your going so someone would have to go out first to check the "terrain", which means slower than light speed travel for someone for a looooong time. So a couple millennia from now we may have a map to use for close to light speed travel, but not a very big one...if we start right now.

 

oh yeah. IDK, but according to Relativity, if you were in a ship traveling at near, time would slow and you would perceive objects outside as moving slowly. Vice-versa.

Also, I forgot the actual figures but just to illustrate, if you were to travel roundtrip to the nearest star and back to earth at maybe 70% light speed or 12 years, you would not age more than 3 years older. Anyway something like that. Just forgot how it goes. Quite interesting really.

[quadz]

It was about a new computer simulation of the universe formation thru present day including both baryons and dark energy/matter influences and all manner of fluid dynamic considerations and the effects of black holes etc.. It really seems like they tried their best to include every major contributing factor and the results so far closely mirror the universe we see in our telescopes

Wow - pretty amazing!

* quadz waits for Ken Ham's talking snake simulator...

[quadz]

yep. same as I understood.
theoretically, an object can only travel up to 99.99999 % of light speed since at light speed the objects mass would be infinite.

An interesting corollary is that time is frozen for photons.

So when we look back with Hubble at light from galaxies emitted 13 billion years ago, no time has passed for those photons during their entire trip.

[quadz]

It was about a new computer simulation of the universe formation thru present day including both baryons and dark energy/matter influences and all manner of fluid dynamic considerations and the effects of black holes etc.. It really seems like they tried their best to include every major contributing factor and the results so far closely mirror the universe we see in our telescopes

Wow - pretty amazing!

As it happens, in the latest PBS Arizona Horizons episode just posted this evening, Lawrence Krauss discusses this same new universe-simulation:

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iS4HW3lbu4c/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iS4HW3lbu4c"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/iS4HW3lbu4c" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/iS4HW3lbu4c</a>

Particularly catching my attention: that when simulations such as this show themselves to be accurate enough, they may guide observers to look for things (or look in places) we hadn't thought to check before!

[QwazyWabbit]

yep. same as I understood.
theoretically, an object can only travel up to 99.99999 % of light speed since at light speed the objects mass would be infinite.

An interesting corollary is that time is frozen for photons.

So when we look back with Hubble at light from galaxies emitted 13 billion years ago, no time has passed for those photons during their entire trip.

An interesting corollary to the corollary is that the dual photon-wave nature of light implies that the photon was radiated in all directions from its source and is therefore seen to be everywhere in the universe all at once, from its perspective.

[|iR|Focalor]

An interesting corollary to the corollary is that the dual photon-wave nature of light implies that the photon was radiated in all directions from its source and is therefore seen to be everywhere in the universe all at once, from its perspective.

Yo momma so fat, she like the dual photon-wave nature of light, she be seen EVERYWHERE all at once.

[M^tster]

yep. same as I understood.
theoretically, an object can only travel up to 99.99999 % of light speed since at light speed the objects mass would be infinite.

An interesting corollary is that time is frozen for photons.

So when we look back with Hubble at light from galaxies emitted 13 billion years ago, no time has passed for those photons during their entire trip.

An interesting corollary to the corollary is that the dual photon-wave nature of light implies that the photon was radiated in all directions from its source and is therefore seen to be everywhere in the universe all at once, from its perspective.

Observing the light as either or will make it the other right? So make sure you think its a wave when you want it to be a photon? Then we could use it as a long range binary computer. 

[2d]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/26/two_years_ago_earth_missed_solar_doom_by_just_one_week/

 

[quadz]

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RSsMRkN99aE/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RSsMRkN99aE"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/RSsMRkN99aE" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/RSsMRkN99aE</a>

"30x background radiation measured on a plane...
I always find it ironic that I get more radiation exposure flying to do an experiment at a powerful nuclear reactor, than I get actually doing the experiment at the reactor."

[yahoo]

http://io9.com/the-coldest-object-in-the-universe-has-been-created-in-1649359062

I was wondering what did they use to cool down the material since what I know is that in most practice they use Liquid Nitro for which is about 210 °C.

Also wouldn't the substance they used to cool would be more colder than the substance being cooled be the coldest object?

[|iR|Focalor]

That'd make for one helluva a Jagermeister tap.

http://io9.com/the-coldest-object-in-the-universe-has-been-created-in-1649359062

I was wondering what did they use to cool down the material since what I know is that in most practice they use Liquid Nitro for which is about 210 °C.

Also wouldn't the substance they used to cool would be more colder than the substance being cooled be the coldest object?

Liquid nitrogen? Maybe. There's plenty of liquids in existence that will super cool when they become a gas. Perfect example is the liquid butane inside a Bic lighter. You can hold the lighter in your hand and it feels whatever the ambient temperature of the room is. But if you crack the valve off the top, it'll start spewing butane GAS out, which can literally freeze your finger like frostbite if it makes contact with the gas stream long enough. Back to liquid nitro... I dunno if there's any condensing method for it, but I'd assume whatever they're using is some type of fancy shmancy condensing method to turn a liquid into a gas. And in that case, copper is already used for the coil and would be the same temperature as whatever is inside of it. I think? So maybe the copper they're measuring the temp from is the coil itself. I dunno for sure. But temps that low, you probably gotta have a coil made from nearly 100% pure copper to make it conduct temperature as efficiently as possible. I think gold would be another metal you could use, but it's expensive as hell obviously and probably not as durable as copper.

[QwazyWabbit]

http://io9.com/the-coldest-object-in-the-universe-has-been-created-in-1649359062

I was wondering what did they use to cool down the material since what I know is that in most practice they use Liquid Nitro for which is about 210 °C.

Also wouldn't the substance they used to cool would be more colder than the substance being cooled be the coldest object?

Super-cooling is usually achieved by pressurizing the object in a Dewar container and then slowly releasing some of the pressurizing gas in that container. This cools the container and the test object in the same way releasing Propane from a tank cools the tank. My guess is they put the copper slug inside a pressure vessel, filled it with helium gas at high pressure and kept that whole assembly inside a Dewar filled with liquid helium surrounded by another chamber full of liquid nitrogen and surrounded the whole thing with a vacuum. Cracking a valve into the central core would release some gas and chill the core even more.

Liquid Nitrogen at 1 ATM is about 77 Kelvin or −196 °C. Liquid Helium is colder: 4.2 K or -268.8 °C at 1 ATM. Pressurize your liquid Helium and you can get it to go below 0.5 K.

Hospital MRI machines use superconducting magnets that must be chilled by liquid helium. The magnet is inside a chamber surrounded by liquid helium, the liquid helium Dewar vessel is surrounded by a jacket of liquid nitrogen and that whole thing is all inside a Dewar donut to keep it from chilling the room and the patient. Once the magnet is stabilized at 4 or 5 K, the current in the magnet is ramped up by a power supply which increases the current in the magnet until its at the desired magnetic field strength, then the power supply is disconnected and the current in the magnet loop remains constant. The liquid helium and liquid nitrogen are replenished periodically so the system remains cold. There are pressure relief valves vented to the outside of the building to keep the escaping gasses from filling the room. Liquid helium is extremely dangerous to handle because it's so cold and because the liquid helium jet from the stinger that's used to insert the gas into the magnet chamber will slice through things like feet and hands.

This is why people are researching warm superconductors. If you can create a superconductor at 77 K or even warmer, you make all that extra jacketing unnecessary and you greatly reduce the cost and size of your superconducting system.

[quadz]

Latest Lawrence Krauss talk on the Origins of the Universe.

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7cIbfbl8124/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7cIbfbl8124"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/7cIbfbl8124" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/7cIbfbl8124</a>

(If you're familiar with his past lectures on this topic, this one is similar, but does include some new content on the implication of being able to measure gravitational waves, and is condensed down to just 40 minutes.)

[Whirlingdervish]

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/the-quest-to-make-synthetic-cells-shows-how-little-we-know-about-life/475053/

I thought this was an interesting story. It highlighted for me how far we've really come in my lifetime toward understanding life at it's most basic levels and how much we still need to learn before we have a working knowledge of genetics beyond just mapping existing genes in species that already exist and work.