NASA Poised To Topple a Planet-Finding Barrier (nextbigfuture.com)

schwit1 shares a report from NextBigFuture.com: Babak Saif and Lee Feinberg at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, have shown for the first time that they can dynamically detect subatomic- or picometer-sized distortions -- changes that are far smaller than an atom -- across a five-foot segmented telescope mirror and its support structure. Collaborating with Perry Greenfield at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, the team now plans to use a next-generation tool and thermal test chamber to further refine their measurements. The measurement feat is good news to scientists studying future missions for finding and characterizing extrasolar Earth-like planets that potentially could support life. To find life, these observatories would have to gather and focus enough light to distinguish the planet's light from that of its much brighter parent star and then be able to dissect that light to discern different atmospheric chemical signatures, such as oxygen and methane. This would require a super-stable observatory whose optical components move or distort no more than 12 picometers, a measurement that is about one-tenth the size of a hydrogen atom.

Comments

Re: Space based?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you haven't heard of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

Now launching in 2019 unfortunately. :-/

Re:Space based?

[idji]

You've basically described the James Web Telescope, it has 18 such mirrors. It's IR, but that is optical for cosmological distances.

Re:Perhaps they will explain gravity

[rgbatduke]

Yeah, and then they went and discovered that pesky neutron. Oh, and quantum mechanics. And don't forget, quantum field theory, an absolute plethora of particles, neutrinos, and both special and general relativity! But even before these developments drove a stake firmly through the heart of "gravity as electromagnetism in disguise", as you note:

Attempts to unify the two basic forces of the universe, usually by reducing gravitation to electromagnetism, was part of the electromagnetic program, but in spite of much work, no satisfactory solution was found.

Now, of course, just because they didn't find a satisfactory solution doesn't mean that there isn't one. However, in the meantime, solutions that ARE satisfactory have been obtained that describe gravitation as an interaction that is very much not reducible to E&M, or as curvature of space-time by mass-energy that need not be (and in the literal bulk of cases, the quark-quark interactions that govern nucleons and nuclear binding energies, is not) electrodynamic in origin. While I agree that to a large extent particle "mass" is the self-energy of its local field structure and might end up ALL being field energy in the end (once we unify field theory properly and completely), there are more fields than just gravitation and electromagnetism and more elementary particles than just electrons and "nuclei", which is about all that was known in 1904. Also, Maxwell's Equations simply don't have any ROOM for gravitation, with or without magnetic charges (symmetric completion). Whatever the TOE turns out to be, it (almost certainly) isn't "just" going to be MEs classical or quantum or QED tied to ELECTRONS. You see, sir, there are those pesky definitely-not-an-electron neutron, neutrino, muon, quark, photon, gluon, heavy vector boson thingies, many of which we can directly "see" in modern collider experiments, others which we can almost directly infer (quarks BOTH from structure AND from observations of jets).

And then there is the Higgs particle, which has possibly maybe mostly been seen but which awaits a few more sigma and which (sigh) sure, might turn out to be a chimera once again. But it is a pretty compelling theory and it, not MEs, does appear to provide an explanation for mass.

Perpetuation of an old idea in the teeth of all of the evidence accrued in the meantime that it was incorrect requires a sort of wilful blindness and is indeed the sign of either a crackpot or a troll. OR you could just be kidding on the trollish side of things, but reposting an old thing from well over 100 years ago... really?

Re:Space based?

[Geoffrey.landis]

To make multiple telescopes work together "working as one large one", you have to control the positions of their mirrors relative to each other to a small fraction of a wavelength. That's what this is about.

I'm not sure what they need picometer accuracy for, though. That seems more than the requirement.