Slashdot Mirror


Distance of a Microlensing Event Measured For the First Time

astroengine writes For the first time, astronomers have combined the observational power of a ground-based survey with a space telescope to measure the distance to a stellar-mass object that was detected through a chance microlensing event. In a new paper published in The Astrophysical Journal, astronomer Jennifer Yee of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), Mass., led the study focusing on the detection of the microlensing event called "OGLE-2014-BLG-0939." Detected by the 1.3 meter Warsaw Telescope at the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile and alerted through the Optical Gravitational Lens Experiment (OGLE) community on May 28, 2014, Yee's team seized the opportunity to use NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to focus on the transient brightening. Both telescopes recorded a light curve of the event and was therefore able to derive the distance to the dark lens.

47 comments

  1. My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We may never fully understand the nature of our universe, and almost certainly will never understand it in our lifetimes. But the question raised in the topic is actually a fundamental one that spans far beyond dark matter to all forms of theoritical science. Many theories are based heavily upon other theories. The "root" theories (with any luck) will eventually be proven or disproven, affecting all research and theories which follow that "root".

    For instance, if I find a pinecone lying on the ground under a pine tree, the simplest explanation is that it fell off of the pine tree. Sure, it might have been planted there by invisible space aliens in conjunction with the Illuminati acting in strict accordance with the Masonic doctrine of the Coming of the Pine Cone King, but since there is no evidence to favor one explanation over the other, I should assume that it fell off of the pine tree.

    This of course ignores that if there were a deity that created beings, endowed them with the capacity for logic, failed to provide evidence of its own existence, then punished those beings that failed to believe in it, said deity would be sick and twisted, not deserving of worship but in need of intense psychotherapy.

    1. Re:My thoughts by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      The simplest explanation is usually the correct one

      Exactly. His post is +mod point fishing copy-paste boilerplate that has nothing to do with this article.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ecosystem that made it possible for the pine tree to grow could (possibly) have been created by some sort of deity, and the pine cone simply fell off the tree. God doesn't need you to believe in him to exist, any more than neutrinos need people to believe in them to exist. It is beyond our realm of understand how anything could manipulate matter to create suns and planets. But where did all that matter come from? Long live the FSM!

    3. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God doesn't need you to believe in him to exist, any more than neutrinos need people to believe in them to exist.

      Technically speaking, if information is conserved as many theories to explain things like inertia would suggest your mere existence is an afront to God because you existing detracts from the tangible greatness God may otherwise be.

    4. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "[..] the odds of all the factors coming together perfectly to allow life to form spontaneously"

      If you do not know what 'factors' were required to 'allow life to form spontaneously', you cannot make any sensible guess about the odds required for them to 'come together perfectly'.

      As far as I am aware, the exact 'factors' that contributed to 'abiogenesis' are thus far unknown. As are the exact 'factors' that contributed to the manifestation of our physical universe, including the space-time it occupies.

    5. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans try to anthropomorphize everything and therefore most think that the universe was made for them by God. What if, however, God created the universe for other purposes and your existence is just a consequence of the ecosystem. God doesn't care or even know about you because you are unimportant. Maybe God is a "big picture" guy that only looks at galaxy scale events. Sorry to burst your bubble humans.

    6. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are so many planets, orbiting so many stars, in so many galaxies that even such astronomically high odds (see what i did there...?) make the evolution of life all but guaranteed.

    7. Re:My thoughts by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      then punished those beings that failed to believe in it, said deity would be sick and twisted, not deserving of worship but in need of intense psychotherapy.

      Look at it from this perspective: Humans may someday be able to control or make sub-universes and/or simulations of universes. We'd then become deities from the perspective of any beings in such worlds. Thus, the idea of a deity is not so far fetched. It's within the realm of scientific speculation.

      Further, some of the humans who end up making or are put in charge of some of those worlds may turn out to be sadistic jerks. Thus, the situation you described is not entirely unrealistic. Acting "deities" could exist and could end up being jerks.

      That being said, I don't trust the humans of our Earth to get the traits of any such deity right, IF we are under such an overlord. They'd likely make up crap about the deity if they had contact with him/her/it. Or, it would be indistinguishable from tales of fake encounters.

    8. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if there were a deity that created beings, endowed them with the capacity for logic, failed to provide evidence of its own existence, then punished those beings that failed to believe in it

      That's essentially why I'm agnostic. The first three points are entirely plausible, but the last is utterly asinine. None of them, however, are either provable or disprovable -- until you really do make it to heaven and say "well I'll be damned".

    9. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like a parasitic incarnation of insanity eating away at the mind of God.

    10. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the question raised in the topic is actually a fundamental one that spans far beyond dark matter to all forms of theoritical science.

      Nothing against philosophy of science, but there isn't anything about this particular result that raised any questions about dark matter, or raised anything special about theoretical science in general.

      Microlensing has been observed before, and many searches have been done before because the possibility of black holes, rogue planets, and other dark lumps of matter have been previously considered dark matter candidates. Astronomers for some time have been aware that there is stuff out there, because they've seen microlensing events, but the number seen is way, way below what was originally expected by people expecting dark matter to just be literally dark clumps of regular matter. Turns out the upper bound on such stuff placed by searches doesn't even come close to the amount of matter needed.

      Again, nothing against philosophy of science and a lot can be said about such things in general. But there is no substitute for being aware of what observations have already been made when trying to judge what questions any new result may or may not bring up.

    11. Re:My thoughts by gwills · · Score: 1

      Cool ideas. Now pass the bong, please.

    12. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow -1 for the most basic and important findings of philosophy. Meanwhile, +4 for wild speculations (although interesting and worthwhile) about deities.

    13. Re: My thoughts by JWW · · Score: 1

      Time to watch The Matrix again!

    14. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplist explanation is the one you should test first, it does not mean that it is the correct one. You simpletons should read more books and stop regurgitating shit you saw on youtube. Seriously, Slashdot is full of retarded Obama lovers. Obama will be gone soon, but the slashtards are immortal.
      every day i am forced to add to the list of people who piss me off.

    15. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus, the situation you described is not entirely unrealistic. Acting "deities" could exist and could end up being jerks.

      or they are Roko's Basilisk. He/She/It is kind of a jerk.

    16. Re:My thoughts by Livius · · Score: 1

      What's the simplest explanation? There's a supreme deity with magical powers and mental health issues? Or that humans evolved as social creatures and their brains need metaphors for their community and their environment, and invent those metaphors as needed?

    17. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or option C) this is a dream and you are all figments of my imagination.
       

    18. Re: My thoughts by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Information is not conserved. The second law of thermodynamics wouldn't exist if it were.

    19. Re: My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Rindler singularities are responsible for inertia information is definitely conserved.

    20. Re:My thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Occam was just lazy and had inadequate computing resources.

  2. 10,200 Light Years Away by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now you don't have to RTFA.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:10,200 Light Years Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA tried to do some weird cross scripting thing, then TFJA said access denied...

  3. 20 years late by mbone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is known as microlensing parallax, and was first done 1995. Parallax breaks lensing degeneracies, enabling the determination of distance,

    Now, you may quibble about this particular distance measurement, but it's been done for 20 years now. Routinely. And, yes, its been done from space before too.

    My guess is that some needed qualifiers were lost between the astronomer's mouth and the headline writers keyboard, but it ain't first.

    1. Re:20 years late by cusco · · Score: 4, Informative

      I broke the rules and RTFA, this is the first time that they have managed to combine an Earth-based observation and a space-based one separated by far enough from each other to give a reasonably accurate baseline for an accurate measurement of both distance and mass. From the article:

      Calculations estimated it to be 10,200 (+/- 1,300) light-years away. . . These observations also allowed the mass of the object to be measured — around 0.23 solar masses

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:20 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0.23 solar mass detected at 10k ly ? That's impressive! We'll be able to detect incoming Borg.

    3. Re:20 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article states that they made measurements of stars at 6 month interval. This would mean that the Earth would be facing stars on the opposite sides of the sun or 180 degrees from each other. Assuming it is difficult to see through the Earth and the sun, I would assume that the star in question would be almost tangent(90 degrees) to the Earth so this would mean that one would have to see this star very early in the night sky on one side and very late in the night on the other side. Now the baseline is said to be 2 AU or about 200 million miles but compare this with the distance of 10,000 light years or about 60,000 trillion miles. 2 AU are microscopic in comparison to 10,000 light years so the angle would be very close to 90 degrees in both cases. I have read that this type of measurement is accurate only out to 400 light years away.

    4. Re:20 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they could be out by 1,300 light years on a distance of 'only' 10,200? That doesn't sound very accurate to me. Does this have implications for calculations of the size, and therefore the age, of the visible universe?

    5. Re:20 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This measurement is not in the distance ladder used to calculate cosmological distances and ages. Your question is on par with asking, "I measured the length of my drive way by counting steps, but my stride varies by more than 10%... what implications does this have on the calculations for the size of the universe?"

    6. Re:20 years late by mbone · · Score: 1

      I broke the rules and RTFA, this is the first time that they have managed to combine an Earth-based observation and a space-based one separated by far enough from each other to give a reasonably accurate baseline for an accurate measurement of both distance and mass. From the article:

      Calculations estimated it to be 10,200 (+/- 1,300) light-years away. . . These observations also allowed the mass of the object to be measured — around 0.23 solar masses

      Not quite. If you read further, you see that the key word is that it is first for a "isolated" (i.e., single) star. Dong et al. did this in 2007, but for a binary star.

      I must sat that I dislike "firstitis," both in science and on Slashdot. However, these are not easy measurements and this is still quite an accomplishment.

    7. Re:20 years late by mbone · · Score: 1

      So they could be out by 1,300 light years on a distance of 'only' 10,200? That doesn't sound very accurate to me. Does this have implications for calculations of the size, and therefore the age, of the visible universe?

      No.

  4. Astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am currently a sophomore in high school, and have recently gotten very interested in Physics, Programming, and the study of space. Is there any advice for an aspiring astronomer that you feel would be particularly helpful?

    1. Re:Astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any advice for an aspiring astronomer that you feel would be particularly helpful?

      Yeah, don't learn astronomy from Slashdot. Too many people here with a strong opinion based on having read something at the level of newspaper article, drawing conclusions from bad analogies, and being unaware of things that have observed even decades ago while insisting that scientists are blind. Look for online course notes from a university, as there are quite a few out there now, for free and at varying levels of detail depending on what you want. Once you get some of the basics down, start looking through Arxiv.org for free papers, especially review papers on topics. Astronomy seems to by far have the largest amount of easy to get, free access papers online compared to other physical science fields, and is great for learning everything from the basics to bleeding edge research. Yet somehow there are a lot of people that don't even make it past the second sentence of a Wikipedia article on a topic they claim to be very interested in arguing about.

    2. Re:Astronomy by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      learn to talk to women now, before it becomes too late.

    3. Re:Astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, I am a girl.

    4. Re:Astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn the basic bacground you will need to do your job: Logic, philosophy/history of science, maths, programming. My impression is that astronomy is much better at teaching these than some other fields, but skip spelling class to learn those on your own if neccesary.

    5. Re:Astronomy by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Okay, then start building your stockpile of cats now =P

    6. Re:Astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, Thank you. Very helpful.

    7. Re:Astronomy by mbone · · Score: 1

      I am currently a sophomore in high school, and have recently gotten very interested in Physics, Programming, and the study of space. Is there any advice for an aspiring astronomer that you feel would be particularly helpful?

      Take as much math as you possibly can.

    8. Re:Astronomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the field is not very lucrative from a pay/career perspective (though being female might be a leg up???), consider that astronomy is very reliant on amateurs as well as the so-called experts. My advice is to have a secondary field of study (or make astronomy the secondary field while having something else as the primary).http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/04/07/167248/distance-of-a-microlensing-event-measured-for-the-first-time#

  5. Are there any variable gravitational lenses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If gravity waves exist there should be gravitational lenses that oscillate in time to the frequency of the gravitational wave. I have never heard of a variably lensed object of the sort you would expect, why is that?